Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Angola

Mr. G. Thomas: I beg to present a Petition concerning the relationships of Her Majesty's Government with the Portuguese Government as long as the present policy for Angola shall last. This Petition was in circulation for twelve hours only on Sunday last in the Christian churches of this land. Within a short time 37,524 people had signed this Petition, which expresses grave concern about the
harsh and repressive policy of the Government of the Republic of Portugal
and begs respectfully that this House should
manifest its disapproval of such policy by some signal act.
It adds:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that no military supplies should be allowed to be sent from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Republic of Portugal and its overseas territories in Africa and elsewhere while such repressive policy is continued. Or that such other measures may be taken as your Honourable House shall deem meet.
And Your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
The Petition was signed by Eric Leslie Blakebrough, Leonard E. Addicott and G. Thompson Brake, three Christian ministers responsible for initiating this Petition.
I have received a protest from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) along the same lines but not in the terms of the Petition. I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct the Clerk of the House to read this Petition to the House.

The CLERK OF THE HOUSE read the Petition, which was as follows:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the undersigned Sheweth as follows:

1. Your Petitioners view with grave concern the continuing harsh and repressive policy of the Government of the Republic of Portugal towards many of its subjects in its African territory of Angola and
2. Your Petitioners respectfully feel that your Honourable House should manifest its disapproval of such policy by some signal act.
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that no military supplies should be allowed to be sent from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Republic of Portugal and its overseas territories in Africa and elsewhere while such repressive policy is continued. Or that such other measures may be taken as your Honourable House shall deem meet.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Advisory Boards and Committees

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many advisory boards and committees of a central or national character there are who now advise Her Majesty's Government; and what is the total cost of such bodies to public funds.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): About 850. The total cost is not known, but will not be large as nearly all members of these bodies give their services free.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Member say how many civil servants advise the Government to accept or reject the advice of the advisory bodies? In view of the current chaos of the Government's policy, does it not seem that the Government's success is in inverse proportion to the amount of advice which they receive?

Sir E. Boyle: The second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is, I think, incorrect. In answer to the first part, I think that it is quite impossible to work out with any precision the


number of advisers of the Government in Departments who advise in one shape or another on matters of policy.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Inter-Parliamentary Union (Overseas Delegations)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decision he has reached regarding increases in the Exchequer grants to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union to enable them to increase the number of overseas delegations.

Sir E. Boyle: As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House when the right hon. Gentleman raised this matter on 8th June, he is prepared to examine any specific proposal.

Mr. Shinwell: What is meant by examining "any specific proposal?" If I suggest to the Financial Secretary that his right hon. and learned Friend consults the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union and asks them what amount of money is required, will the hon. Gentleman agree?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider that point. Government support for overseas visits made by Members of this House under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is obviously implicit in the annual grants that they have made to these organisations for many years. At the moment no formal approach has been made to my right hon. and learned Friend, so I cannot add to the Answer he gave when the right hon. Gentleman last raised this Question.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Financial Secretary aware that these sums are totally inadequate? Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerned about the grave damage which could result to Parliament from the fact that hon. Members who ought to travel about the world, particularly in areas for which the House is responsible, are dependent upon public relations firms and other organisations financing their trips? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer look at it again in the light of these new developments?

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. and learned Friend made clear the importance he attached to this question. I do not agree that the grants we make are derisory or inadequate. The grant in aid to the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union is £11,500. In addition, the Group receives assistance from the Government Hospitality Fund for its home entertaining to the value of about £4,000 to £5,000. The United Kingdom grant in aid to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is over £27,000. I do not agree that these are derisory grants. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important matter, and I think that my right hon. and learned Friend made that quite clear when he last answered questions.

Mr. H. Wilson: How do the sums of £11,500 and over £27,000 compare with the funds made available by Voice and Vision, on the one hand, and by agencies representing the Spanish Government, on the other? Which is the larger?

Sir E. Boyle: I obviously cannot make that comparison without notice. I was merely pointing out that I do not consider that the Government grants are derisory. Also, as hon. Members can see from the Estimates, a special additional grant of £96,000 is being paid to the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association this year to assist with the cost of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, which is to be held in London this autumn. Obviously these are important matters, but I do not think that I can add more today.

Bank Rate

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that most of the hot money attracted to London has now been repatriated and of the harm that high money rates are doing to house building and trade generally, if he will now recommend a 1 per cent. Bank Rate reduction in order to give additional encouragement to industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that, even if I agreed with his analysis, I should not make a statement about future Bank Rate policy.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am glad that he agrees with my analysis of the situation? If he cannot promise not to reduce the Bank Rate, will he use his influence to ensure that we are not so stupid as to increase it, because increasing the Bank Rate increases our costs at home and hot money is no good to us at all? Will he see that these ideas are put before his right hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. Barber: I regret that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend in the analysis which forms the basis of his question. As to the second part of his supplementary question, all these are matters which are taken into account in considering the level of the Bank Rate.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Economic Secretary aware that, apart from the other damaging effects which were mentioned at Question Time last week, a large number of owner-occupiers, including myself, received a communication this morning from building societies saying that the rate of interest charged on building mortgages is now going up, this figure having been reduced three weeks before the last election? In view of this, will the Economic Secretary consider the necessity of making a fundamental change in our interest rate policy?

Mr. Barber: As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, building societies' lending and borrowing rates are not geared to the Bank Rate and a reduction of 1 per cent. in the Bank Rate, as suggested by my hon. Friend, would probably not lead to any reduction in building society rates. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that building society rates move more in line with longer-term yields than with the Bank Rate or with money market rates.

Sir C. Osborne: Since high Bank Rates merely attract hot money, which disguises our real economic position and makes our people live in a fool's paradise, why do we not get cheaper money here so that our people can understand our real difficulties?

Mr. Barber: When dealing with the matter in the course of the Budget debate my right hon. and learned Friend frankly admitted that the level of the Bank Rate has to be determined in the light of both our internal and our external require-

ments and that these sometimes conflict. All these matters are taken into account when the level of the Bank Rate is considered.

War Loan and Undated Government Stock

Sir B. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the hardship caused, particularly to those with fixed incomes, by the devaluation of War Loan and undated Government stock, if he will ascertain the number of persons wholly or principally dependent on income from such investments, with a view to determining what action is possible to relieve such hardship.

Mr. Barber: I do not think that such an inquiry would serve any useful purpose, even if it was feasible.

Sir B. Janner: Does the Economic Secretary mean that he is not concerned about the large number of people who are affected by this unhappy position? They are people who have relied fully on the Government when investing their money and who today find themselves in penurious conditions because the value of their stock has gone down. Will he do something about it? I ask him to realise that it is important that he should try to find what kind of people, and how many, are being affected by this.

Mr. Barber: From the letters I have received and from talking to people, I am well aware of the difficulties which are facing people who hold this form of Government stock. My point is that merely to know how many people are dependent upon the income from Government securities, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, would not help to overcome the difficulties which, as I explained to the House last December, stand in the way of adopting any special action.

Mr. Jay: Does the Economic Secretary recall that in the Budget debate on 20th April the Financial Secretary said this:
the Government are well in command of the monetary situation and … the gilt-edged investor can very well face the months ahead with just a little more confidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 1410.]
As there has been a fall of about three points since then, will the Financial Secretary at least express sympathy with those who followed his advice?

Mr. Barber: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that goes outside this Question, but there is another Question later on the Order Paper which deals with the extent to which investors have been investing in Government stock.

Mr. Logan: On a point of order. I rose twice, Mr. Speaker, but you called somebody else. Have I no right to speak?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will always have a right to speak. In point of physical fact, I did not see him, but I am afraid that, even if I had, such is the pressure on Questions nowadays that I am not entitled to indulge my wishes by calling all those I see rise.

Mr. Logan: In view of your reply, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I was most anxious to bring before the House the 3 per cent. War Loan swindle? I thought that it was necessary to raise it as it is nothing else but a swindle.

Mr. Speaker: I should greatly like to indulge the hon. Member if I could, but I cannot because it would not be fair to other hon. Members.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will receive from the hon. Member for Tynemouth, in person, letters from individuals who invested in War Loan and who have suffered hardship.

Mr. Barber: Yes, Sir.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend very much for that response to my invitation, but is he aware that the article in the Daily Mail on the plight of people who invested in 3½ per cent. stock has been very much emphasised? Would my right hon. and learned Friend please look at the position of those living on small fixed incomes before I come to see him, in the hope that he may be able to suggest some way of helping these people in their present very parlous condition?

Mr. Barber: I think that it is apparent from what my right hon. and learned Friend has said on several occasions since 17th April that he is very concerned about the position of those living on small fixed incomes. Indeed, the whole object of his economic policy at

the present time is to keep stability of currency, which will be of benefit to these people. As to the position of War Loan, which is referred to specifically in my hon. Friend's Question, I am afraid that I should be misleading the House if I gave any indication that we should be able to help in any way there.

Mr. Mitchison: Can the Economic Secretary now answer the supplementary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) about the statement made by the Financial Secretary on 20th April?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Barber: No. There is another Question later in the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, which deals with the extent to which people are investing in Government stock, and I should have thought the answer more relevant to that Question.

Mr. Webster: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the depressed price of undated Government stock, showing the reluctance of investors to support Government indebtedness, if he will accelerate his investigations towards reducing that part of the national assets administered by the Government.

Mr. Barber: I cannot accept the premise of my hon. Friend's Question that investors are reluctant to lend to the Government. £148 million was lent to the Government from the gilt-edged market in 1960 and we are not expecting to need any new money from that market in 1961–62.

Mr. Webster: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite that reply, in addition to the hardship caused to the investors concerned, it is going to be almost impossible to raise undated Government stock in the market in the lifetime of anyone in this House? This is adding to the cost of lending money to the Government and is substantially increasing Government expenditure.

Mr. Barber: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind by that, because his original Question asked whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will accelerate his investigations towards reducing that part of the national assets administered by


the Government. I think that the Chancellor's views on the question of denationalisation are perfectly well known and I cannot usefully add to them.

Universities (Medical Schools)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the shortage of junior medical staff in the hospital service, of the over-dependence of the hospital service on Commonwealth doctors, of the shortage of doctors in many Commonwealth and Colonial Territories, and of the overcrowding of British medical schools, he will initiate discussions with the University Grants Committee with a view to providing increased grants for new medical schools in suitable universities.

Sir E. Boyle: Discussion of this matter would be premature until the review to which my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, referred on 5th June, has been completed.

Mr. Boyden: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very urgent matter? The damage done by the Willink Report has been very considerable. Will he encourage the Minister of Health to get a move on with this so that action can be taken?

Sir E. Boyle: I agree that this is an important matter and I am sure that all concerned will take due note of the point the hon. Member has made.

Government Expenditure (Plowden Report)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the Report of the Plowden Committee on methods of control of Government expenditure.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. and learned Friend has now received from the Plowden Committee a Report consolidating the views of the Committee over the whole range of its work, and he intends to publish it.

Mr. Peyton: Does my hon. Friend realise that that is an entirely welcome and wholly satisfactory reply? It is very nice to be able to say such a thing in a supplementary question to the

Treasury. Will he tell his right hon. and learned Friend that any other decision would completely frustrate and make a complete mockery of Parliamentary control of Government expenditure?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be glad when he reads that supplementary question. I hope with some confidence that my hon. Friend will find the Report, when it is published, extremely interesting and rewarding reading.

St. Ninian's Isle Treasure

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds he seeks to remove from Aberdeen University the Saint Ninian's Isle treasure which was discovered by representatives of Aberdeen University and is now in the legal custody of that university and concerning which he has had correspondence with that university; and if he will now make clear his abandonment of all claim to that treasure.

Sir E. Boyle: I am advised that according to the law of Scotland, the objects found on St. Ninian's Isle belong to the Crown. The answer to the second part of the Question is therefore in the negative.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the Principal of Aberdeen University has stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland, without any legal right and in opposition to the relevant law and to court decisions of long standing and authority, wrongly persist in claiming this treasure from Aberdeen University, which is its depository and trustee, and will he now take steps to abandon these wrong, improper, unjust and dishonest claims?

Sir E. Boyle: As I find it rather a venturesome matter to discuss even English law in this House, I certainly shall not indulge in a discussion of Scottish law, not even with the encouragement of the Principal of Aberdeen University.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will my hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor that at no time in any court has it been upheld that the Crown has


superiority over the udal law of Shetland, and that it cannot, therefore, claim this treasure? Secondly, does he not feel that it is a matter of public policy that the central museums of this country should not claim every treasure that is found around these islands?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of my noble Friend's comment. I am sure, however, that every hon. Member in the House is better informed than I of the udal law prevailing in Shetland, but that they will not expect me to discuss here the legal basis of the Crown's claim to these objects.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer to this Question, I hereby give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Southampton Airport (Customs Facilities)

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to restore the Customs facilities to Southampton Airport in order to enable the airport to meet the demand for air services to the Channel Islands and to the Continent.

Mr. Barber: Customs facilities have already been arranged for the services scheduled for 1961 to the Channel Islands and the Continent. The position will be reviewed at the end of the year.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the restoration of the special Customs facilities. May I ask, however, whether he is aware that Her Majesty's Government sold the airport to the present owners as a going concern, and, as full Customs facilities are necessary for its operation, will he please take immediate steps to enable the airport to be designated a Customs airport?

Mr. Barber: I could not accede this year to my hon. Friend's request, but I can assure him that redesignation would be possible if the international traffic developed sufficiently.

Dr. King: Is the Economic Secretary aware that, whilst we are delighted that the anxieties about the airport have been

temporarily relieved, his colleague in the Ministry of Aviation assured us in answer to a Question on 15th March that he would use his good offices to help the airport? That being so, would the hon. Gentleman see that no further difficulties are put in the way of a very plucky effort?

Mr. Barber: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in suggesting that any difficulties had been put in the way of this airport. In fact, I think that the Customs have been very forthcoming. Whether or not they can go on to give full Customs services—in other words, designate the airport—depends on the amount of traffic.

Tourists (Motor Cars)

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the importance of encouraging tourists to conic into this country, he will now abolish the carnet/triptyque forms of documentation for private motor cars temporarily imported into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Barber: The possibility of simplifying the current requirements is being considered.

Mr. Carr: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are now the only country in Europe that insists on this documentary paraphernalia, and does he not think that this must inhibit our tourist trade?

Mr. Barber: I know the interest that has been taken in this matter by my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and Shipley (Mr. Hirst). I hope very much that we shall be able to announce a decision in the very near future, but I would add that this is a much more difficult matter than appears at first sight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because it involves serious risks of Revenue evasion and, consequently, has to be very carefully considered. I would only add that it is quite wrong to assume that the considerations that have caused most other European countries to abandon this system are relevant to our own position.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that this investigation has been going on for months and months, and that this lack of decision is making our country


a laughing stock throughout Europe? Does he not think that, in the interests of the development of our tourist trade, the matter demands much more urgent consideration?

Mr. Barber: I regret the delay in reaching a decision. As I say, I hope that we shall be able to announce it in the very near future.

Overseas Expenditure

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cuts he proposes to make in Government expenditure overseas.

Mr. Barber: I have nothing to add at this stage to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 20th June.

Mr. Lipton: Is not that rather poor progress? Will the Economic Secretary press on the Chancellor and the Government the desirability of putting right at the top of their priority list the cost of British Forces in Germany where we could save about £50 million a year straight away? Will he not, in this connection, follow the very good example of the American Government, who are also withdrawing 20,000 troops from this country, and does he not agree that the sooner all foreign troops are taken from all these countries the better?

Mr. Barber: What is important is that the Federal Republic of Germany should, in one form or another, make a full contribution towards solving the problems of international imbalance.

Mr. Marquand: Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that no cult whatever is intended in economic aid from this country to the under-developed countries?

Mr. Barber: All forms of Government expenditure overseas will be reviewed by my right hon. and learned Friend. We shall have to consider very carefully what future level of overseas expenditure we can afford.

Mr. H. Wilson: Whilst we welcome this interest in a subject that we on this side raised in February and in the Budget debate with no response what-

ever from the Government, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will see that any reductions are concentrated on those elements in our overseas expenditure that really ought to be reduced, including that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)? Also, when looking at the question generally, will he take an entirely fresh look at the whole business of the failure of British firms to bring back their earnings from trade as a result of overseas corporations?

Mr. Barber: This Question refers to Government expenditure overseas, and I can assure the House that the review that my right hon. and learned Friend is making covers all forms of Government overseas expenditure.

Income Tax

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax a married man paid when his income was £220 in the financial year 1938–39.

Sir E. Boyle: None, if the income was all earned, and £3 6s, 8d., if the income was all from investments.

Mr. McKay: If that be true when they had an income of £220, does not the Financial Secretary think that the basis for non-payment of tax should be raised in accordance with the standard of living?

Sir E. Boyle: If I may say so, that arises more out of the figures involved in the hon. Gentleman's next Question. I could not accept it as a general principle, but I would ask him to put his next Question, when I can answer him

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rise in the cost of living since 1938; what would be the equivalent now of a £220 wage in 1938 if it had only risen to the extent of the cost of living since 1938; and what amount of income tax would be paid by a married man in this case.

Sir E. Boyle: The cost of living in May, 1961, was 191 per cent. above the 1938 level. On this basis a wage of £220 in 1938 is equivalent to £641 in 1961. On such earnings a married man without dependants would pay £52 Income Tax in 1961–62.

Mr. McKay: As I understand the position, the cost of living has gone up by 190 per cent. If so, why is the wage earner today paying taxation at such a high rate? Is it not time that the low basis of taxation for the married man was raised in accordance with the cost of living?

Sir E. Boyle: That is a perfectly fair question and I can give the hon. Gentleman two brief answers. Firstly, to exempt the married man from Income Tax, on an earned income of £640, would require a married personal allowance of £500 in place of the present £240. To raise the married personal allowance to £500 and to raise the single allowance correspondingly from £140 to £300 would cost together about £900 million in a single year, and the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is an enormous figure. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should reflect that social income—the value of the social services enjoyed by the average working man with that salary—is infinitely greater than before the war, apart from other benefits, such as that of full employment.

Government Expenditure

Mr. Webster: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete his inquiries into the reduction of Government expenditure.

Sir E. Boyle: I have nothing at present to add to my right hon. and learned Friend's replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 20th June.

Mr. Webster: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while many of us hope that the Chancellor will not have to curtail road and hospital building programmes, we equally hope that the Government will rapidly denationalise the remaining steel organisations that are still administered by the Government and will also dispose of the surplus railway properties as soon as legislation permits?

Sir E. Boyle: My hon. Friend will appreciate that steel denationalisation hardly arises directly out of this Question.

Arts Council (Provincial Theatrical Companies)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the continuous process of reduction of

support by the Arts Council for provincial touring theatrical companies; and whether he will draw its attention to the need to give continued support to the provinces.

Sir E. Boyle: My understanding is that the Arts Council has not reduced its support of such companies. The Council is well aware of the needs of the provinces.

Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Caryl Jenner Mobile Touring Theatrical Company, which does excellent work in Lincolnshire, Cornwall and Scotland, had its Arts Council grant of a paltry £3,000 completely cut and that that action will probably mean the end of this mobile touring company? This was done following on the death-blow to the Carl Rosa Opera Company. It is a definite blow at provincial touring theatrical and operatic companies. Will the hon. Gentleman draw the Arts Council's attention to the fact that when we ask for a national theatre we are told that the Council cannot do anything more for London because it is concentrating on the provinces, but now it is cutting the provinces?

Sir E. Boyle: Discussions are now in progress between the Arts Council and the Caryl Jenner Mobile Touring Theatrical Company. The repertory theatre has gained considerably from Arts Council grants during the last few years.

Wages, Salaries and Dividends

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage rise in wages, salaries and dividends, respectively, during 1959, 1960 and the early months of 1961.

Mr. Barber: Between 1958 and 1959 total wages are estimated to have risen by 3½ per cent., total salaries by nearly 7 per cent. and ordinary dividend payments before deduction of tax by 12½ per cent. Between 1959 and 1960 wages and salaries together—separate figures are not yet available—are estimated to have risen by 7½ per cent. and gross ordinary dividend payments by about 24½ per cent. Preliminary indications for the first quarter of 1961 are that wages and salaries were about 9 per cent. higher than a year earlier and gross


ordinary dividend payments about 12 per cent. higher than a year earlier.

Mr. Jay: In view of these figures, will the Chancellor give an undertaking to produce some plan for limiting increases in dividends before talking about more wage restraint?

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, moderation is important here as in other increases in personal incomes and I certainly would not wish to minimise its importance. But it is necessary to keep a sense of perspective in this matter. In 1960 dividends, before taxation, amounted to less than £1,000 million while the wage and salary bill totalled £13,570 million.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Advance Factory, Shotts

Miss Herbison: asked the President of the Board of Trade when work will commence on the advance factory at Shotts; and when it will be ready for occupation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpher. son): Negotiations for acquiring the necessary land are proceeding; building work will begin as soon as possible after they are completed, and is expected to take about nine months.

Miss Herbison: Will the Parliamentary Secretary make certain that there is no unavoidable delay whatever in the putting up of this factory, since the area is desperately in need of jobs which, it is hoped, will be made available by this factory?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, we shall do our best.

North Lanarkshire

Miss Herbison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to attract industry to the Newmains Cleland area of Lanarkshire, which is scheduled under the Local Employment Act.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The Board of Trade is continuing its efforts to encourage the introduction and expansion of industry throughout North Lanarkshire, and the Board's Office for

Scotland is in close touch with the Lanarkshire County Council. Because of subsidence there is difficulty in finding industrial sites in the Newmains Cleland area, but there is suitable land available within a few miles.

Miss Herbison: This area has lost many hundreds of jobs in the last few years as a result of the closing of ironworks and pits and, since no alternative industry whatever has come in, what steps—other than those that have been announced by the Parliamentary Secretary today and about which we have heard year after year—and what action are the Government taking to attract industry to this area?

Mr. Macpherson: The Local Employment Act facilities are, of course, available and, in addition, a number of jobs are developing round about. There are 4,800 jobs in prospect in the North Lanarkshire area and, as the hon. Lady knows, unemployment in the area has declined by 1,500 in the last year.

Dollar Imports

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the concern expressed by the Prime Minister of Jamaica at the West Indies Constitutional Conference at the removal of safeguards for traditional and important West Indian export markets as a result of dollar liberalisation; what consultations Her Majesty's Government had with other Commonwealth, including colonial. Governments about the new measures of liberalisation of dollar imports to take effect on 1st August; why no forecast was made by his Department of changes in the pattern of United Kingdom imports likely to result from these measures; and whether he will now make a full statement on the Government's policy for the safeguarding of West Indian and other Commonwealth, including colonial, markets in the United Kingdom.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As regards the first and fourth parts of the Question, we shall continue to take Commonwealth interests fully into account in implementing our commitment to end discrimination against imports from the dollar area. As regards the second part,


we consulted the Commonwealth Governments concerned before announcing these measures. As regards the third part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 8th June.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why the Board of Trade did not study the likely effect on these Commonwealth imports before deciding on liberalisation, and can my hon. Friend now assure me that the vital interests of our fellow subjects overseas will not be badly affected next August?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. and learned Friend did not say that he had not studied the effects. He said that it was impossible to forecast them. That is the situation. We consulted the Commonwealth countries with a view to ensuring that the timing of this had the least possible adverse impact on their sales.

Aberdeenshire

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what success he has had in bringing new industry to the City and County of Aberdeen, since the introduction of the Local Employment Act.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Five new projects, employing about 85 people, have come into operation in Aberdeenshire, and further projects to employ about 125 are in prospect.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is only chickenfeed? Does he further realise that he now has an unrivalled opportunity of fulfilling some of the Governmental promises to bring trade to Aberdeen by attracting some of the contracts and sub-contracts in connection with the building of the new Cunarder so that the £18 million of public money to be spent on that project will be distributed fairly throughout Scotland?

Mr. Macpherson: I realise that unemployment has fallen from 3·2 per cent. in the Aberdeen district in May, 1960, to 2·5 per cent, and that an £800,000 Government contract was recently awarded to an Aberdeen shipbuilder.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can my hon. Friend say what action has been taken

by his Department to try to persuade firms in the industrial belt of Scotland to award sub-contracts to the development areas, such as Aberdeen?

Mr. Macpherson: I am well aware of the desirability of doing exactly what the hon. Lady suggests.

Lady Tweedsmuir: But will my hon. Friend say what he is doing about it?

Mr. Macpherson: The regional controllers are in constant touch with industry and they make this point to industry in appropriate circumstances.

Central West Fife

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs have been created in the Central West Fife area since the passing of the Local Employment Act; and how many jobs have been lost in the same area in the same period as a result of tile rundown of the mining industry.

Mr. N. Macpherson: About thirty jobs have already accrued in Central West Fife and another 640 are in prospect. About 600 fewer men are employed in the mining industry than a year ago.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that this is a derisory result of the Local Employment Act and that the facts do not reveal the whole picture because many men and youths have left the area to go to the Midlands, South-East England and other parts of the United Kingdom? Can he say whether he regards the position of the youths in the area—the boys and girls who are now leaving school in increasing numbers—as at all satisfactory?

Mr. Macpherson: We are very conscious of the need to provide employment for those leaving school at the present time. The fact is that in this area, as elsewhere, unemployment has fallen—in this case from 3·5 per cent, to 2·8 per cent. over the year.

Jute Industry

Sir J. Duncan: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance, in view of the position both of the United Kingdom and the European jute trades, that he will take no action to negotiate terms for the entry of Great Britain into, or association of


Great Britain with, the Common Market without satisfactory arrangements being made for the continuation of the prosperity of the British jute trade, and for the avoidance of distortion in the European jute trade.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the resolution on trade deflections adopted by the recent General Assembly of the Association of European Jute Industries in Lisbon, a copy of which has been sent to him; and what estimate he has made of the effect that such deflections would have on the British jute industry if the United Kingdom were to become associated with the European Common Market.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the jute industry in the Dundee area regarding British participation in the Common Market; and what reply he has made.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The Association of Jute Spinners and Manufacturers has written to my right hon. Friend to express apprehension about the effects of possible association with the Common Market. He has informed the Association that the points made in its letter have been noted. I can assure hon. Members that, in any matter affecting trade in jute goods, my right hon. Friend will continue to take account of the importance of maintaining employment in Dundee.

Sir J. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend agree that the jute industry is a wholly exceptional industry in that it is concentrated in Dundee and district? Will he not only note what is in this letter but keep in the closest touch with the industry so that it will not be sold down the river with the question of the Common Market?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the special position of the jute industry. In fact, the Treaty of Rome makes provision to allow the possibility of special measures, among other things, to deal with "difficulties which may seriously impair the economic situation in any region".

Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware of the belief that the trade deflections in jute arise from the imperfect

provisions in the Treaty of Rome in respect of definition and certification of origin? Will he bear this deficiency in mind in the course of any negotiations which may take place?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the Government bear in mind that Dundee has a chronic unemployment problem and has one of the highest unemployment rates in Scotland? Will he also bear in mind that while this national industry is concentrated entirely in the Dundee area, Dundee is geographically a long way from any alternative source of industrial employment? Will he make sure that there are adequate safeguards in any arrangements that he makes?

Mr. Macpherson: As I said in my original Answer, we will take account of the special position of Dundee.

Mr. Strachey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that unemployment in Dundee is 1,000 more than it was a year ago? Will he see that the safeguards which he agrees exist in the Treaty of Rome are emphasised to the full in any future negotiations?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the position of Dundee will be borne in mind in the course of any negotiations.

Flax

Sir J. Duncan: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he is making to the Australian Government regarding the increase in the duty from 27½ per cent. to the equivalent of 48 per cent. on the importation of flax into Australia, including those goods which are now in transit; and what effect this increase in tariffs will have on the exports of the British flax trade.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I assume my hon. Friend to be referring to the recent change in the duty on canvas and duck of flax previously dutiable at 27½ per cent. The new duty on these goods was imposed in accordance with the terms and procedure laid down in our trade agreement and there are no grounds on which my right hon. Friend could base


representations. It will take some time before the effect on our trade can be judged.

Sir J. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend convey the feeling of the flax industry to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations so that he may talk to Mr. Menzies when he goes there shortly, and point out that, as the flax industry can hope for nothing in the Common Market, it is very important that it should retain its traditional Empire and Commonwealth connection?

Mr. Macpherson: The Association of Flax Spinners and Manufacturers has already made representations to my right hon. Friend, and I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend has said.

Sale of Arms (Portugal)

Mr. Brockway: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refrain from granting licences for the sale of arms destined to be used against national liberation movements in Angola and Mozambique.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Applications for licences will continue to be considered in accordance with the procedure and policy indicated in the reply which I gave to the Question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 20th June, but applications to supply military equipment to Portuguese overseas territories are at present in suspense.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask if he can confirm that General Pina, the Chief of Staff of the Portuguese Army, was in London this month to negotiate a sale of arms? Can he say whether arms have been licensed to Portugal? How is it going to be possible to impose restrictions to prevent them being used in connection with the policy of the Portuguese Government in Angola?

Mr. Macpherson: This matter comes to my Department when applications are made for licences. I am not aware of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and I am unable to confirm what he has said.

South African Films

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure that South African films are no longer eligible for British quota.

Mr. N. Macpherson: In this, as in other matters, the position under United Kingdom law held by South Africa prior to its withdrawal from the Commonwealth is preserved for a year by the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1961.

Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that, so far as the Board of Trade is concerned, this is only a temporary situation for a period of twelve months, and that at the end of twelve months the situation is likely to be that the South African producers will no longer be given the benefit of a system designed to stimulate British and Commonwealth production? Is that the situation?

Mr. Macpherson: The position is that the present situation is preserved for a year and that in the meantime we shall be considering what is to happen after that.

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received, since the announcement that South Africa was leaving the Commonwealth, on the subject of South African films and British quota; and what reply he has made to these representations.

Mr. N. Macpherson: None, Sir, but my right hon. Friend has sought and obtained the views of feature film producers about the future treatment for quota purposes of films made in South Africa. Their views will be taken into account when the decisions are taken.

Full Cream and Skim Milk Powder (Imports)

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the concern of milk producers in Scotland at the continued importation of full cream powder from Belgium, France and the Netherlands and of skim powder from France; what evidence he has received that there is a bounty or subsidy on the export of the former and that imports of skim powder from France are both subsidised and


dumped in the United Kingdom below the domestic price; and what action he proposes to take to prevent injury to this industry.

Mr. Corfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware of the disorganisation of the home market resulting from the dumping of French spray milk powder at over 10s. per cwt. below current prices of the equivalent home and New Zealand products and that this commodity is subsidised by the French Government and is causing loss to the producers of milk and the manufacturers of milk powder in the United Kingdom; and what action he proposes to take;
(2) whether he is aware that bounties and subsidies are paid in respect of production or export of full cream powder in certain Continental countries and that this product is being dumped in the United Kingdom below the domestic price in the countries of origin; and what steps he is taking to protect the interests of United Kingdom producers.

Sir A. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet taken a decision on the formal application by the Milk Marketing Board for antidumping duties on full cream and skim milk powder, the export of which is subsidised by Belgium, France and the Netherlands.

Mr. P. Browne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he now proposes to take to stop the import of milk products at prices below the cost of production in the countries of origin.

Mr. Morris: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take concerning the request of the Milk Marketing Board to stop the dumping of milk products.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The Board of Trade is engaged in a full investigation of the application by the Milk Marketing Boards for action under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957 against full cream milk powder imported from France, Belgium and the Netherlands and on skim milk powder imported from France. The investigation has been extended to Austria, Finland and the Irish Republic and may be extended to other countries which appear to be supplying milk powder at

dumped or subsidised prices. Representations have been invited from interested parties. My right hon. Friend cannot prejudge the outcome.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: In view of the apprehensions and anxieties which are already facing the dairy industry in this country, will my hon. Friend do all in his power to remove this further threat to the industry?

Mr. Macpherson: The first thing is to investigate the facts and to ascertain the effect that this might be likely to have upon the industry.

Mr. de Freitas: Since on the last occasion that the Milk Marketing Board applied to the hon. Gentleman's Department it took five months for the Department to make up its mind, will the hon. Gentleman do better this time?

Mr. Macpherson: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, the investigations have to be very full in order to satisfy the three conditions under the Act.

Mr. Prior: Why does my hon. Friend have to wait until an application is made by the Milk Marketing Board? If it is in the national interest to stop this cheap dumped food coming in, why cannot he take action straight away?

Mr. Macpherson: That is only one of the three conditions involved in the Act. One of them is that there must be material injury to United Kingdom industries. It is for the industry to make its case first.

Mr. Marquand: Will the hon. Gentleman invite all the European countries mentioned in these Questions to join with the United Kingdom in a joint programme for the export of these surplus dairy products to the under-developed countries where they are badly needed?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I do not think he would expect me to say more about it today.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMON MARKET

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish the correspondence between himself and


other Commonwealth Prime Ministers on the calling of a Prime Ministers' conference on the Common Market.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. Any communications of this nature would be confidential.

Mr. Shinwell: In a matter which so vitally concerns the future of this country, is it desirable that an important discussion of this kind should be concealed from the House? Is there anything to hide? Is it possible that in the discussions which have taken place with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers the right hon. Gentleman has declared his intention in principle of accepting the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The reason is very simple. For many years, we have been in the habit of having communications between Prime Minister and Prime Minister within the Commonwealth. It has always been understood that they would not be published. If they were to be published, of course, they would lose some of their value and, perhaps, sometimes would be written in somewhat different terms.
In this particular case, I have applied the rule only because it is a good thing to keep the rule. There is a general understanding of and welcome for the plan which I have put forward, which was that certain Ministers should visit the different Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Shinwell: As there is considerable confusion and ambiguity about the Government's intentions with regard to the Common Market, is it not desirable that we should have made available to hon. Members all possible information, including the views of Commonwealth Prime Ministers?

The Prime Minister: These communications were simply confined to what was the most convenient way of making our consultations. It has, I think, been generally welcomed now by all the Commonwealth countries that the way I propose is the most convenient in the circumstances.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that what he told us a fortnight ago is still true, namely, that no decision has been taken by the Government even to enter into

negotiations, let alone as to what would happen after negotiations had taken place?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. If there were any change, these journeys of my right hon. Friends would be useless. We are going to consult with the Commonwealth as to the whole position before reaching a decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERY PROTECTION

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, The First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have completed their inquiries into providing additional naval protection for trawlers fishing near the territorial waters of foreign countries.

The Prime Minister: The arrangements for the deployment of ships for fishery protection are kept under continual review.

Mr. de Freitas: Has not the time come when the protection should be provided by ships under international control? In order to lessen opportunities of conflict between countries such as that which arose in the recent Danish incident, will the Prime Minister consider calling a conference of the countries concerned with a view to establishing such a patrol under international auspices?

The Prime Minister: That is a quite different point of view. I was asked whether we are considering the best method of protecting our own ships. That is going on. Whether we should hand all this over to some international body is an entirely different question and much wider than I could deal with in answer to a supplementary question.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the fishing industry in Scotland, particularly in Aberdeen. being greatly concerned about the "Red Crusader" incident, has expressed the view that additional protection should be afforded particularly around the Faroes, and does not he think that it might be wise to have consultations with foreign countries on a method of enforcement of the fishing limits?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that may well come out at the inquiry which is


now, I hope, amicably arranged to take place between the Danish Government and ourselves. In fact, in this particular case the naval protection was available.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERLIN

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of public anxiety at the new decision of Her Majesty's Government, as communicated to President Kennedy since the London talks, to modify the British commitments in Berlin; and if he will now state current British policy in this matter.

The Prime Minister: There has been no such decision, as my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear on 20th June.
Her Majesty's Government, in concert with their allies, have over the years made a number of comprehensive proposals for the just and equitable solution of the problem of Germany and Berlin, culminating in the Western Peace Plan presented at the Geneva Foreign Minister's Conference in 1959. All these proposals have been rejected by the Soviet Government, who prefer instead to manufacture an artificial crisis for the purpose of gaining their own ends. We and our allies have certain obligations in Germany, and we do not intend to abandon them. Among these obligations is the preservation of the freedom of the people of West Berlin. The Soviet Government must come to realise that we intend to defend this, and that we cannot countenance proposals inconsistent with it. If they wish to discuss the issue with us, we are prepared to do so, but they must understand that it can only be on the basis I have described. The House will appreciate from what I have said that there is no question whatever of any modification of British commitments in Berlin.

Mr. Donnelly: I warmly welcome the firmness of that statement about Berlin, but will the Prime Minister say how he expects us to be certain that the British Government are taking this issue seriously, having regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that we are at the moment thinking about cutting down our commitments in Germany? What would the Prime Minister say if Mr. Khrushchev's statement about Berlin were accompanied by

a statement from the Soviet Minister responsible for planning in the economy that the Russians could not maintain their forces in Eastern Germany?

The Prime Minister: I welcome in the first part of that supplementary question what I have not heard for a very long time—a friendly gesture from the hon. Gentleman. When he held more extreme views he was more friendly than he is now when he has become so Right-wing in his opinions. I do not understand why.
I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was discussing the question of the costs and transfers across the exchanges, which is a problem which we have many times raised and which must be solved.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Prime Minister aware that, contrary to what he has said, Dr. Adenauer has obstructed every reasonable proposal for a settlement of the German problem and that, so long as Dr. Adenauer refuses to renounce nuclear weapons for Germany and the right of a united Germany to be a member of N.A.T.O. and the right of Germany to claim the so-called lost Eastern territories—so long as that attitude continues, it is morally impossible for the Western Powers to support the people of Berlin?

The Prime Minister: We are getting back to form now. The hon. Gentleman never changes.

Mr. Dodds: Nor does the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I am all right. One plan which I venture to suggest the hon. Gentleman might propose to some of his friends is that the people of Berlin might be allowed themselves to vote in both East and West Berlin as to what régime they want to live under.

Mr. A. Henderson: May we take it from the Prime Minister's first reply that, while standing firm on the freedom of West Berlin and free rights of access, Her Majesty's Government would be ready to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Union on the major problem of Germany and the question of Central European security?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I was very sorry when the conference of


Foreign Ministers broke down. I think that it did quite good work and made what seemed to be some advance. All that has been called off. I should like us to get back to the position of two years ago when there did seem to be a chance of friendly negotiation with the Soviet Government over these problems. But it must be negotiation, not asking us to submit to blackmail.

Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister aware that the very broad unity which exists in the House on what the British attitude towards this problem should be can be jeopardised if he treats remarks about it with the sort of personal frivolity he showed just now? Does the Prime Minister propose to raise again the question of control of arms and forces in Central Europe which he agreed to with Mr. Khrushchev two years ago, since this might serve to reduce the danger of a conflict by miscalculation over the Berlin issue?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. With regard to the first part of that supplementary question, I must stand rebuked. The hon. Gentleman has never had a sense of humour and I shall never be able to give him one. I think I answered the question in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question the other day. That was part of the allied plan which was put forward in 1959 and is still part of it.

Sir J. Duncan: In view of what Russian leaders have been reported as saying recently, will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are in Berlin by right?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Those rights exist as a result of the treaties and the situation created after the war.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Prime Minister consider giving an assurance to the people of Berlin that the Western Powers will never under any circumstances bomb Berlin again and that in any future developments Berlin will be regarded as an open city, as Paris and Rome were in the last war?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that arises out of this Question. What we are hoping, and of course what all the world hopes, is that this matter can be resolved. We have not raised it. The Russians have raised it. If they had any

reasonable negotiation, I am sure that our allies and we will enter into it. But we have to consider the conditions under which it is raised and we will have to work together in the closest harmony in order to set up a strong front against being treated as it appears that the Russian Government now wish to treat us. With those provisions, of course, we all hope that wisdom may prevail and that a reasonable settlement can be arrived at.

MOTOR WORKERS, COVENTRY (ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS)

Mr. Edelman: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to prevent mass redundancy of motor workers in the Coventry area following the sudden and unforeseen shortage of electrical components.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I am in close touch with two unions principally concerned and they are continuing their efforts to secure an early resumption of work in the unofficial strike which has caused this situation. There is a further meeting of the strikers tomorrow, at which renewed efforts will be made by the unions.

Mr. Edelman: While welcoming the initiative which the Minister has taken, may I ask him whether he will bring home to all concerned that the development of this dispute is undermining not only the immediate livelihood of the workers concerned, but the future of the motor industry, which is now gravely threatened by foreign competition?
During the right hon. Gentleman's recent talks at the Ministry of Labour with representatives of the motor workers and of the employers, did he not produce some sort of formula in order to be able to anticipate trouble before it, develops into disputes of this nature, which threaten not only those people directly concerned, but the industry as a whole and vast numbers of men who have no direct association with the dispute and whose livelihood is directly involved?

Mr. Hare: I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question. I myself said in the House yesterday that


this unofficial strike can not only throw thousands of fellow workers out of work, and that not only does it weaken a great industry on which our prosperity relies to a very large extent, but, also—and I think that this is very important—it damages the good name of the trade union movement itself. I therefore entirely associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman said about that.
In the talks that we had with the motor car industry, we stressed the need for establishing better relations on the shop floor. In addition to saying that agreements should be kept, much of our effort was designed to secure better training of shop stewards, foremen and supervisors.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side again appeal to the strikers at Smith's Motor Accessories to return to work and to allow the trade unions to begin negotiations? Is he further aware that there now appears to be a case for setting up a court of inquiry to examine this matter? I see that some trade union leaders suggest that such action should be taken. In view of the danger of redundancy throughout a very large section of the motor car industry, will the right hon. Gentleman consider that proposition?

Mr. Hare: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question. However, I think that it is up to us to ensure that the leaders of the unions are given every chance to get on with the job of getting their people back to work. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about an inquiry. Whatever may have appeared in the Press, no request for an inquiry has been made to me.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will do nothing to yield to the unreasonable demands of these unofficial strikers? Will he bear in mind that ordinary people are sick and tired of unofficial strikes? Further, will he do his utmost to ensure that nothing is done to encourage them and that as far as possible the men responsible for them are punished?

Mr. Hare: I think that my hon. Friend will have perceived the feeling which, I think, exists on both sides of the House on this matter. I have received

assurances from hon. Members opposite as well as from my hon. Friends that our job is to try to ensure that agreements are kept and that the unions are given the chance of getting on with the job of getting their men back to work.

Mr. G. Brown: I ask the Minister not to be taken in by the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). I understand that the Minister is leaving these islands tonight to do a job of salesmanship in connection with the Common Market, for which we all recognise his competence. However, in view of at least two major strikes in this industry and a great deal of redundancy, would it not be a very good thing if he stayed here and attended to the problems which are the problems of his Department? Who is to take charge of the dangerous situation in the motor car industry while he is away? Does the Prime Minister think it reasonable that this matter should be left to the Parliamentary Secretary while the Minister goes flying round the world?

Mr. Hare: I appreciate, and am very grateful for, the right hon. Gentleman's kind remark about my fitness to travel abroad.
This is a matter of great importance, of course. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will ensure that this situation is kept very closely under review. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is present and has heard what has been said. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no lack of care in giving all the assistance that we can in this matter. I am seeing Mr. Carron and Mr. Matthews as soon as I leave the House. We are keeping in very close touch.

Mr. Brown: But the right hon. Gentleman is keeping in touch only until tonight. I am not sure whether the reference to the Prime Minister is an encouragement or a discouragement, but the Minister did not answer my question. I asked him who will be responsible when he has disappeared. Are we to take it that we may put Questions to the Prime Minister about this matter?

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend will not get an answer.

Mr. Hare: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) is a very old Parliamentarian. He knows perfectly well that if the Minister is not present to answer a Question, then it is put to the Parliamentary Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman put his Question seriously, and I give him the assurance that the Government will be watching the situation and doing everything that they can to assist in it.

SALE OF ARMS (PORTUGAL)

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. May I put a point to you, Mr. Speaker, about Questions to the Prime Minister? You will remember, Sir, that, last Thursday, after some confusion, the Prime Minister undertook to reply to a further Question on the supply of arms to Angola. Such a question is on the Order Paper this afternoon. In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade seemed to presage or foretell a change in policy when he said that the supply of arms had been suspended, may we ask whether you, Sir, have had a request from the Prime Minister to allow him to answer the Question? If not, how does he propose to fulfil his promise?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no request. All that has been dealt with. We are now dealing with a Private Notice Question.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect Sir, I think that we are still on Questions, even though a Private Notice Question has been asked. I am not entitled to ask the Prime Minister the question except through you, Sir, but does he think that he is discharging his responsibilities when he sits there with a cynical smile on his face, in view of the very great disquiet that there is in the country on this issue?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows—and I have to adhere to it—that the rule as far as the Chair is concerned is that, if there is no application to answer a Question, that concludes the matter.

Mr. G. Brown: May I ask for your guidance on this, Mr. Speaker? The other day, after a number of supplementary questions which the Prime Minister

showed every sign of taking seriously, we had a firm promise from him that, if a Question in specific terms which he identified and asked for were put down to him, he would answer it.
Today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade slipped in at the end of an Answer a phrase which sounded like a major change of policy. Although the Question for which the Prime Minister asked was tabled in the terms which he indicated, he has sought no opportunity to answer it. Since we are clearly being treated Ito more evasion by the Prime Minister, may I ask you, Sir, whether we on this side may have some help from the Chair in dealing with this reprehensible conduct of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member asks for my guidance. I am timorous about the phrase, because I am here not to give guidance, but to rule when questions arise for decision. I am sure that all the right hon. Member has been saying will have been heard. In so far as the position of the Chair is concerned, I have already indicated what it is. I cannot go further about it.

Mr, Callaghan: Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In that case, may I move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of the Prime Minister to announce that a change of Government policy has been made in the supply of arms to Portugal for use in Angola?
If you will give me 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, I will try to draft the Motion.

Mr. Gardner: On a point of order. Is it right, Mr. Speaker, that the business of this House should be held up while hon. Members are writing as well as speaking?

Mr. Speaker: It is not right that the business of the House should be held up, but some amount of mutual tolerance seems to be advisable. One of the matters with which I am concerned is that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) should not be made to write so fast that I will have difficulty in reading the Motion.
The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance,
namely, the refusal of the Prime Minister to announce that a change of Government policy has been made in the supply of arms to Portugal for use in Angola.
I cannot consistently with precedent accede to that application. Refusal of information of that kind is not a ground for doing so.

Mr. Callaghan: I would not presume to argue with you, Mr. Speaker, on this issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I should think that hon. Members on the benches opposite might soon recognise that our feelings are directed against the Prime Minister and not Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: May I ask what the hon. Member is doing? If he is not addressing me on a point of order, I cannot let him make a speech.

Mr. Callaghan: The only point of order on which I want to address you, Mr. Speaker, is to say that there is an instinct in the British people which, I very much regret, is not represented by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I deplore the raising of supposed points of order which are not points of order.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On that point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was not a point of order."] May I now raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker? Is it not the case that when right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench wish to raise a supplementary question on an Answer from the Treasury Bench, they usually manage somehow to catch your eye, and that, when this Question arose and the Answer was given, no supplementary question was raised by the Opposition Front Bench because its occupants were all asleep, and that that is the reason why this demonstration has taken place?

Mr. Speaker: It cannot be further to the point of order. It was not one.

Mr. Hobson: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order.

Mr. Hobson: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood you to rule that you could not grant the Adjournment of the House because the refusal of information was not a matter which could be dealt with in that manner. As I understood it, there had never been a refusal, because there had never been a request for information.

Mr. Speaker: In refusing applications of that kind, I do not attempt to state more than one sufficient reason for declining the application.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Further to what point of order?

Mr. Callaghan: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). In case there has been any misunderstanding in anybody else's mind, would you allow me to put it to you that I was not asking for a debate on the refusal of the Government to give information, but for a debate on the refusal of the Prime Minister to fulfil his promise that he would answer the Question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ruled on the Motion which the hon. Member submitted to me.

Mr. Brockway: I apologise, Mr. Speaker; I do not want to delay proceedings or be inconsiderate to yourself. The point which has been discussed arose out of an Answer to a Question by me. Would you be prepared, Mr. Speaker, to accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the announcement by the Government of a changed policy in relation to the sale of arms to Portugal?

Mr. W. Yates: On a point of order. May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that back bench Members have been put in difficulty on a point like this on a previous occasion, which you probably recall, over Cyprus. Although there were two applications to you, the Government Front Bench was listening to the debate and finally agreed to make a statement at ten o'clock, which helped the House and helped business.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the hon. Member is talking about. The present situation is that an application has been made to me to permit the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) to move the Adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the announcement by the Government of a changed policy in relation to the sale of arms to Portugal.
I cannot accept that. I do not regard it as definite and I do not regard it as urgent in the circumstances.

Mr. Callaghan: Why does not the Prime Minister answer?

Mr. Mason: It would be much easier for everybody if he did.

Mr. Brockway: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, which was made in answer to a Question by me, that the sale of arms to Portugal had been suspended—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Member to make speeches. I understand what the application is founded on and I have it in mind.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder, and the said Estimates refereed to the Scottish Grand Committee: —

Class V, Vote 9 (Department of Health for Scotland).
Class V, Vote 11 (Housing, Scotland).
Class IX, Vote 10 (Roads, etc., Scotland).
Class V, Vote 10 (National Health Service, Scotland).
Class VIII, Vote 11 (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland).—[Mr. Redmayne.]

HOUSING BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it may be convenient if I indicate, before I call on the Minister to move his recommital Motion, which Amendments to that Motion are selected.
I would select the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), subject to certain modifications if he were prepared to accept them. I would accept it if it read, line 6, at the end to add "and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 4, page 6, line 3; Clause 5, page 6, lines 35 and 44, and the proposed Clause—(Acquisition of houses in multiple occupation.)

Mr. Michael Stewart: The Amendment that you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, would rule out the new Clause—(Register of houses in multiple occupation). We had rather special reasons for wishing to move the Clause in the particular form proposed, which provides for the register not to be compiled at once but after a lapse of two years after the passing of the Bill. I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you could see your way to explain why you have thought fit not to select that Clause.

Mr. Speaker: It is not the practice to give explanations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only did I read his letter on the subject with great care, but that I am most grateful to him for writing it out, so that I should miss nothing that he wished to urge. I have not missed the point about two years. I considered the matter most carefully and came to the conclusion that I must not call that new Clause.
I was not proposing to select the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), and, to be completely fair, about it, I should like to explain that, in my view, of the two Clauses to which it relates each is out of order.
I propose to select the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) and


the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady for Flint, East (Mrs. White).

Mr. Frank Allaun: May I put a point to you, Mr. Speaker, on what you have said about the two new Clauses which my hon. Friends wish to move? The major one deals with the matter of houses without baths. As you know, there are about 5 million families without baths. Therefore, this is a major item of importance and in the Bill the Minister deals with this specifically. He proposes to increase the money paid to landlords for doing this kind of thing, that is, introducing baths, and to increase the grant from Government expenditure.
The hon. Members who support this new Clause regard the Minister's proposal as completely unsatisfactory. We claim that this will fail, as dismally as his attempt to bribe landlords in the past has done. Therefore, in this new Clause we propose an alternative method of getting the baths supplied. To overcome the reluctance of the landlords to do so, we are proposing that it should be done on the application of the tenant.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that I almost handed him this opportunity to argue his case, but not on the merits of the Clause I assume that it is very important, but I have to decide whether it is in order.

Mr. Allaun: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I think that there should be an opportunity during the passage of the Bill to present an alternative course. The actual grounds on which I wish to press the point are these. In the Money Resolution—and I am quite sure that that is the reason why these Clauses are not being taken—if you. Mr. Speaker. will refer to paragraph C (4, a) you will see that it reads:
Relaxation of the requirements as to which a local authority must be satisfied before approving an application for a standard grant.
One of the requirements at present in force is that the landlord himself applies for such a grant, and it is precisely this consideration that we are asking to be relaxed. In other words, it should be no longer essential that the landlord applies for the grant. Therefore, we are asking you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this not only because of its constitutional propriety, but also because of the grave im-

portance of the matter, and to consider that this comes within the Money Resolution.

Mr. Speaker: The last words which the hon. Gentleman addressed to me would appear to be relating to his Clause, the marginal note of which is, "Right of tenants to claim improvements". My difficulty about that is that although one of the matters about which the authority has to be satisfied is truly the interest of the applicant, his stake, as it were, in the land, the hon. Gentleman's new Clause is not relaxing the requirements as to which the local authority must be satisfied before approving; it is by-passing the whole process of approval, by-passing the whole process of application and substituting a new system of a declaration by the tenant ultimately to be followed when the work has been done by a deemed application. I cannot conceive that as being nothing more than a relaxation of some requirements of which the authority has to be satisfied for giving approval to an application. It seems to be nonsense in terms of language to say that.
As regards the other one—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was pressing the other one on me or not when he was talking about supplying baths—I shall not argue it out with him if he does not want to argue its virtues.

Mr. Allaun: Let me make it clear, Sir, that what I am arguing about at the moment is precisely the Clause which would supply baths.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to have it clear in my mind. There are two Clauses. Each has a marginal note. Whether or not they are in order is to be governed by different principles. Let us talk about them one at a time. Let this one be—"Right of tenants to claim improvements".

Mr. Allaun: That is the major one and the one on which I am arguing. The claim is that there are certain requirements at present which have to be satisfied. One of these requirements is that the landlord is willing for this to be done. The new Clause proposes that these requirements should be relaxed. That is precisely what we are asking. Other requirements would exist, the


local authority's approval, and so on. It seems to me, therefore, that this falls strictly within paragraph C (4, a).

Mr. Speaker: It is strange how differently the same things strike different minds. Knowing the importance attached to this, if I could make this Clause live and give the House an opportunity to discuss it within the Money Resolution, and this was within my power, I would most eagerly do so. But I have to look at the Money Resolution as though it were a Statute binding on me. What the new Clause would require goes far beyond that in my view.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. John McCann: But may not an application by a tenant constitute an application under the present law?

Mr. M. Stewart: May I, Mr. Speaker, raise a point of order, affecting the other of my hon. Friend's new Clauses—(Modification of conditions for standard grants)?
I do not think that the objection that you have just raised to the Clause—(Right of tenants to claim improvements)—can apply to that one. Indeed, I think that it would appear to the layman at once that this other Clause—(Modification of conditions for standard grants)—is directly within the Money Resolution and the Long Title of the Bill, which speak for the relaxing of conditions.
When this matter was discussed in Committee the Ruling that we were there given was that my hon. Friend's Clause was out of order because it proposed to reduce the number of the standard amenities. Under the present law it is one of the conditions of the grant that when the work is completed the house shall be endowed with five standard amenities. The purpose of my hon. Friend's new Clause is to make it possible for the grant to be given even if at the end of the work only three of those standard amenities are provided. I am suggesting that the layman would consider that a relaxation of the conditions and, therefore. in the terms of the Money Resolution. The Ruling which the Chair in the Committee gave—

Mr. Speaker: There is no need for me to know about it. It is not binding on me.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that it could he held against my hon. Friend's new Clause that that fact alone—that it alters the number of the standard amenities of the house—could make his new Clause out of order. Otherwise, if he had chosen, say, to leave out one of the standard amenities, say, a hot water supply, and to insert the provision of an aspidistra, he could have got the Clause in order. What he has done is simply to reduce the number of the standard amenities, and I would have thought that that was a straightforward relaxation of the conditions and that the Clause could, therefore, properly be regarded as in order.

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for putting it so neatly, but it is a little more difficult than that, I think. What the Money Resolution would allow in this context would comprise relaxation of the requirements as to which a local authority must be satisfied before it approves an application. Before it makes a grant it has to be satisfied of something else—before it makes a grant under Section 4 of the Statute.
I do not know whether the hon. Member has the Statute. I do not wish to burden him unduly with words. Before the grant is made the local authority has to be satisfied that works are completed to the satisfaction of the local authority, and what has to be approved before an application for standard grant is made is set out, as the hon. Member knows, in Section 5 (1) which shows that the matters the authority has to be satisfied about are those mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) of that Section, neither of which relates to baths or standard amenities or anything of that kind. So that I cannot get the hon. Member's Clause within that limb of the Money Resolution.
I did try the other one. There are some words, which at first sight look a bit attractive, about redefinition of standard amenities. The difficulty is that the Clause does not redefine any of them but leaves them defined in exactly the terms they are now, so I could not, on either line, take the view that the Clause comes within the Money Resolution.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I apologise for troubling you again, Mr. Speaker, because it is not my line of country to


quibble over Rulings, I am not very good at it and I would rather get down to the substance of the business, but in relation to the new Clause which we are now discussing—and we understand which that is—I should like to read to you paragraph C (4, b) of the Money Resolution, which mentions
the redefinition of standard amenities".
To be strictly accurate, what we are proposing to do in this new Clause is to seek modification of standard amenities.
You may say, Mr. Speaker, that modification is not the same thing as redefinition, but I would put it to you that, during the long discussion in Committee, exactly this was done by the Minister with permission. We did not object. He has modified the terms on which these grants are applied. I do not want to go into detail. We agreed to it without difficulty. However, he himself, during the passage of the Bill in Committee, did modify those conditions on which grant could be allowed.
That is precisely what this new Clause proposes to do, and, irrespective of the merits of the Clause, it does seem to me quite as in order as what was done by the Minister and accepted by the Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I have not in mind what the Minister was doing. He did a lot of things, and I was not there. The point is that the material Section, that is, Section 4 of the 1959 Act, says:
Subject to"—
so and so—
a local authority shall give assistance in respect of the improvement of any dwelling by"—
so and so—
by such works as may be required for the dwelling to be provided, for the exclusive use of its occupants. with the standard amenities, that is to say—
Then it sets out what the standard amenities are and, of course, it is those terms in which the standard amenities are set out which define them. So I cannot say that the hon. Member's Clause involves any redefinition of them. By saying, "You can get away with three instead of having all," it does not redefine them. I am sorry, but the point is precise, and I have to be stern about it.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the

Amendments to Clause 10, page 11, line 13; Clause 15, page '16, lines 14 and 16; Clause 16, page 17, lines 8, 16, and 17, and page 18, line 1; Clause 17, page 18, line 9; the proposed Clause (Provision of means of escape from fire); and the proposed Clause (Application to certain buildings comprising separate dwellings), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Henry Brooke.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 4, page 6, line 3, Clause 5, page 6, lines 35 and 44, and the proposed Clause (Acquisition of houses in multiple occupation), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Michael Stewart"— [Mr. M. Stewart];
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 4, line 45, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mrs. Joyce Butler"—[Mrs. Butler];
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 5, page 6, line 44, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mrs. Eirene White."—[Mrs. White];

and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(DWELLINGS PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR TOWN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER SPECIAL PURPOSES, AND DWELLINGS PROVIDED BY OTHER BODIES.)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move, in page 4, line 45, at the end to insert:
(d) provided by the local authority of a congested area as part of a scheme of comprehensive re-development or urban renewal.
The Amendment refers to Clause 3 (2) by which the Minister has excepted from his new rise-and-fall formula certain dwellings provided by local authorities or housing associations. That is to say, whereas generally for housing a local authority providing dwellings will obtain either a subsidy of £24 or a subsidy of £8 according to its financial position, there are certain types of housing for which the local authority will always receive £24. These types of housing are mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2), of the Clause as recommitted.
In the proposed new paragraph (d) I seek to ensure that where a local authority provides dwellings as part of a scheme of comprehensive redevelopment or urban renewal it will always receive £24 subsidy for those houses or


flats. I do so because in spite of the fact that the Minister, when this point was referred to briefly in Committee, said that the whole question of redevelopment is a big one, he implied—and I think that he actually used the words although they do not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT—that this would be dealt with in another way.
There is a consensus of opinion at present in favour of comprehensive redevelopment and urban renewal which are urgent questions for many local authorities. The opinion is so strong that it has been expressed on all sides and it was implied in a good deal of discussion in Committee. Nevertheless, in spite of the importance of comprehensive redevelopment and urban renewal, there has been in recent years no new legislation or provision of assistance to local authorities to help them with such schemes. Indeed, what the Minister has done has been in another direction and the Ministry has in recent years withdrawn the planning grant given specifically for the blighted areas of the type which I am speaking.
I shall not pursue that matter further, because I should be out of order if I did so, but the point that I seek to emphasise is that although the need is urgent the Minister has done nothing effective to meet the need specifically and this Bill in some ways may deflect local authorities from urban renewal and comprehensive redevelopment unless it is amended in the way I am seeking.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said as recently as 22nd June, in an Adjournment debate on housing in Manchester, that:
… in some parts of the country slum clearance is approaching its fulfilment, so that it should be possible for some of the vital key staff to transfer themselves to the areas where slum clearance still remains a tragic and vital problem."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1961; Vol. 642, c. 1830.]
There are difficulties in this which the Minister has not fully appreciated. Many of the vital key staffs have their houses in these areas. They do not want to leave. They have their children at local schools and members of their families in local employment.
Even if that came about, which is very unlikely, probably a much better and more logical development would be

for the local authority which had completed slum clearance work to proceed to comprehensive redevelopment. It would have the staff and facilities. The logical thing would be for it to do just that. But because of the subsidy position it may well feel that comprehensive redevelopment is too much for it to undertake. It has completed slum clearance and, therefore, it is much easier to do nothing at all, because comprehensive redevelopment and urban renewal are big tasks which require planning, thought, publicity, and co-operation from members of the public and the ratepayers.
4.15 p.m.
These are tasks which a local authority will not do unless it is under great pressure from the public or the Ministry or some other source to undertake a programme. There is no doubt that the provision of special subsidy encourages local authorities to build certain types of dwellings. The Minister knows from experience that where a high rate of subsidy is given for certain types of dwellings, local authorities tend to build those types. The Minister's policy has recognised that, but unless the right hon. Gentleman makes some provision for comprehensive redevelopment in the form of higher subsidy which the local authority is sure of receiving there is great danger that the local authority will not do the work at all.
The tenor of the later part of the Bill is directed towards encouraging landlords, with the support of local authorities, to patch up bad houses to make them as habitable as possible for a period. That direction, which the Minister has admitted the Bill now gives, however worthy it may be, is surely an emphasis on the patching up of property rather than on pulling the property down and redeveloping it. Therefore, the whole tenor of the Bill as we now have it and as it will operate in the country when it becomes an Act, will be to turn local authorities still further away from the redevelopment of properties which are not slum properties. If there were the money and the planning and all the things which those of us who passionately believe in good housing maintain should be available, these houses would be cleared and fine new houses put up in their place with a proper road layout, open spaces and all the other amenities.
It seems, therefore, that in the absence of any kind of encouragement to comprehensive redevelopment there is great danger that local authorities which should be undertaking that work will not do it. It is because of this that I submit that the local authority, which under the Minister's new formula would receive only £8 subsidy, should receive £24 for dwellings built as part of such a scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) pointed out in the debate on housing in Manchester that Manchester is such an authority which will now receive only £8 a year for each of the dwellings that it builds. There must be many other local authorities in various parts of the country where this is an acute problem which, because they will receive only £8 subsidy, will neglect urban renewal.
The Minister may say that the local authorities which do this work already receive some help. They will receive an expensive-site subsidy and a special subsidy under the Bill where the flats are high. This is perfectly true. They will also receive the general housing subsidy, but my whole point is that all this will encourage small schemes. The Bill will not encourage the clearing of a whole area on a big scale which I am sure all of us agree is necessary from the planning part of view in these run-down areas.
If a local authority acquired a big old house and erected a high block of flats, it would receive, if the site were expensive, these special subsidies, but it would not be encouraged to take in a few more houses, to take in the roads and the other obsolete buildings, and to move the factories which are non-conforming users in order to make the scheme comprehensive—and that is what the Minister, as the Minister of Planning, ought to be encouraging it to do.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) and I believe equally passionately in better housing. The only difference between us here is that I could not advise the Committee to give a higher subsidy for rehousing from a congested area as part of a scheme of comprehensive redevelopment or urban

renewal than the amount of the subsidy which is given for slum clearance as such, because I think that slum clearance has importance as great, and probably greater than, urban renewal.
I remind the Committee that the theme of Part I of the Bill is that housing authorities can be divided into different categories—those which are unable to pass the resources test and are shown to need a higher rate of financial assistance if they are to proceed with their statutory housing duties, and those which can pass the resources test, and, by that, are shown not to have so great a need for the housing subsidy. Indeed, it has been argued in some quarters, and there is some logic in it, that those authorities which can pass the resources test need no subsidy at all. Nevertheless, the Government, have not gone as far as that. In the Bill they have assigned a subsidy of £8 a year for sixty years to those authorities which pass the resources test and a subsidy of £24 to those which do not.
The hon. Lady has spoken of urban renewal and comprehensive redevelopment, and I know from what she said in Committee that she has in mind some remarks made by the City Treasurer of Salford emphasising the burden which can fall upon a big city if it seeks to carry out simultaneously far-reaching schemes of urban renewal. I submit to the Committee, however, that this is not the time to debate urban renewal in the large. It throws up far-reaching questions which go far beyond housing legislation. What we have to consider here are the houses which need to be built by or for a housing authority.
It seems to the Government that the right course is to make a special rate of subsidy available for overspill, because that is building of an entirely different character from the building of houses within the area of the authority itself. Where houses are being built within the area of the authority itself, the Bill widens the field, in that every house approved by the Minister and built by the authority will qualify for a subsidy at a rate fixed according to the resources of the authority.
That seems to be a sound principle, and it seems very hard, although I thought the hon. Lady argued her case most skilfully, to maintain that, regardless of the resources of the authority, the


houses that are built as part of a scheme of comprehensive redevelopment or urban renewal should be given a special financial privilege, and that, regardless of the need of the local authority for the money, nevertheless, it should be singled out as being qualified for the £24 subsidy.
I should have thought that the Committee would hardly wish to see local authorities encouraged to proceed with urban renewal, perhaps to the detriment of slum clearance, by Parliament offering a higher rate of subsidy for the former than for the latter.
I understand entirely what the hon. Lady has in mind. I believe that she is anxious to find some financial means of stimulating urban renewal, but I put it to the Committee that this is not the place to do it. This is a housing Bill, and we must consider all the housing activities of a local authority in relation to one another. I must, therefore, advise the Committee not to accept this Amendment, because, in a way that seems unjustifiable to the Government, it singles out houses built for urban renewal and treats them as more urgent than houses built for slum clearance, a point of view which the Government cannot accept.

Mr. M. Stewart: I do not find the Minister's reply convincing. First, on this question of subsidies in general, as he knows, our view throughout has been that the whole of the subsidy provision in the Bill is inadequate to meet the housing problem. Therefore, when we consider the Bill in detail we are faced with this situation: if we put the case for any particular kind of enterprise by a local authority, the Minister can say, "Oh, but I have, by the nature of my Bill, held back the local authorities in general, and surely you would not want to encourage this particular activity of theirs rather than another."
It is rather as if a father starved all his children, and, when met with a plea urged by his neighbour on behalf of one of them, replied, "Oh, but you would not wish me to treat him in a better manner than the others." That is the nature of the answer which the Minister has given to my hon. Friend.
That is a general comment. Let us take the question of urban renewal in particular. My hon. Friend has argued very well the case for its importance,

and on that I want to add only this: we need not think of it only in terms of large schemes. Sometimes what needs to be done is on quite a small scale. For example, we find in a number of London suburbs and London boroughs, here and there, a bit of land with property built on it which is a disorderly jumble, with narrow streets or lanes, perhaps one or two small industrial enterprises, some not very well sited and appointed shops, a little not-very-satisfactory residential property, perhaps, with a bit of open space too small to be of any amenity value. That is the kind of problem which, for example, the London boroughs could get on with very great advantage to their citizens.
The Minister talks about urban renewal in general. How, then, does he propose to encourage it if not sooner or later by provisions which would be included in a Housing Bill? I do not think that it is any answer for him to say that because this is a Housing Bill we cannot discuss urban renewal. If he is ever to encourage it at all, it will have to be through legislation such as this, affecting the powers and resources of local authorities.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman's fear that the local authorities would desert slum clearance unduly for a policy of urban renewal if this Amendment were accepted is altogether misplaced. A local authority which has before its eyes a great deal of slum clearance still to do will, as a matter of common sense or under pressure of public opinion, give every priority to it.
4.30 p.m.
Local authorities which would make use of the advantage which my hon. Friend offers to them would surely be those which are seeing the end of their slum clearance problem in sight but, on looking around their area, are obliged to conclude that although they have got rid of nearly all that could be called slums, they cannot turn their boroughs into attractive and dignified places unless they can get on with work of this kind.
The very fact that they are nearing the end of their slum clearance programme will mean that personnel and facilities are available for going ahead with work of this kind. On reflection, one must agree with my hon. Friend's argument that there is little in the Minister's idea that the skilled staff


required for a slum clearance programme can be regarded as a mobile army which will obligingly travel round the country in pursuit of slum clearance programmes.
It will not work like that. We shall have one authority after another nearing the end of its slum clearance programme and ready to embark usefully on a programme of this kind. For such an authority there ought to be this degree of encouragement in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will stick to her Amendment.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The Minister said that the subsidies will be paid according to the resources of the area and that this is a sound principle. In fact, the subsidies will be paid according to a highly complicated formula which will have extraordinary results. Liverpool, one of the worst housing areas in the country, will receive a subsidy not of £22 per house per annum but of £8 and until 1965 the subsidies paid to Manchester will similarly be reduced. On the other hand, many prosperous areas, such as Bournemouth, will receive a higher subsidy. That is not a sound principle.
The excellent Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) would, to a certain extent, compensate for this unfairness. If anything, she has under-stated the case. She says that a local authority could choose to build multi-storey flats and thereby receive a higher subsidy, whereas if it went in for comprehensive urban redevelopment it would not receive a higher subsidy.

Mrs. Butler: My hon. Friend has misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. In any case in which a local authority built multi-storey flats it would receive the subsidy for multi-storey flats. If it built on an expensive site, it would receive the expensive site subsidy. But there is nothing to encourage the authority to make the schemes bigger and more comprehensive.

Mr. Allaun: I agree. The point which I was trying to make is that the multi-storey flat subsidy is paid according to the number of storeys built, and the authority would still receive the low basic subsidy of £8 rather than £24.

Here, again, the Amendment would remedy the injustice. It seems wrong that those areas which need the subsidy most and will not get it are often those which need comprehensive urban redevelopment. In many cases they have overspill arrangements, but as the old slums are cleared they should be used for redevelopment of this kind. It seems to me that in this way the Government could make good the injury which they will do in the Bill to these old areas. There is a strong case for the Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will give way on the point.

Mr. Albert Evans: It seems to me that the Minister's approach is inadequate. In the Clause the Minister provides subsidies of £28 in one category and £24 in another. The type of house on which the subsidy is paid is defined. It is clear from the Clause that the Minister is trying to direct his subsidies to schemes which will deport people from town centres to new towns and places where the Town Development Act operates. Most of the classes of house listed in the Clause are for people being decanted from the town centres to places outside the towns.
The core of the housing problem is in the centres of our large towns, and for ten years the Government have failed to solve that core of the problem. It is admirable that at last they have taken some step, however small, to help people to move more freely away from our congested town centres. But a gap will be left in the towns. The Minister provides a subsidy for those who move out of the town centres to places where the Town Development Act operates. But the old areas left in the town centres will need to be cleared up and redeveloped. It is a corollary of the Minister's policy, as laid down in the Clause, that these old areas should be redeveloped. It seems to me, therefore, that there is a gap in the provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) is quite right when she says that the Minister is taking no action to enable local authorities to deal with the old town centres which will become less and less populated under his proposals.

Mr. Graham Page: Surely, in those circumstances, the rebuilding in the centres which are cleared will probably be by flats and will attract the subsidy in Clause 5, will it not?

Mr. Evans: I agree. But we also know that those centres which require redevelopment cannot always be used for high flats. Some of the urban authorities must mix their development and combine other housing accommodation with their flats. I think that the Minister

should accept the Amendment and round off his own proposals.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 167, Noes 229.

Division No. 220.]
AYES
[4.40 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Holman, Percy
Prentice, R. E.


Albu, Austen
Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Probert, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Randall, Harry


Awbery, Stan
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Bence, Cyril
Hughes, Emrye (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, H.


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blyton, William
Hunter, A, E.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Boardman, H
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Boyden, James
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Edward


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, James
King, Dr. Horace
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, Julian


Chapman, Donald
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Chetwynd, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cliffe, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Steele, Thomas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Logan, David
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Crosland, Anthony
Loughlin, Charles
Stones, William


Grossman, R. H. S.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
McCann, John
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
MacColl, James
Swain, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mclnnes, James
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sylvester, George


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
McLeavy, Frank
Symonds, J. B.


Deer, George
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy, Hugh
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Diamond, John
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Driberg, Tom
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edelman, Maurice
Marsh, Richard
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Timmons, John


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, Frank


Evans, Albert
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Finch, Harold
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
Monslow, Walter
Weitzman, David


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Ginsburg, David
Mulley, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold
Willey, Frederick


Grey, Charles
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Grimond, J.
Parker, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parkin, B. T.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence
Zilliacus, K.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Hilton, A. V.
Popplewell, Ernest
Mr. Lawson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bidgood, John c.
Bryan, Paul


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony


Allason, James
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Bullard, Denys


Atkins, Humphrey
Bishop, F. P.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Barlow, Sir John
Bossom, Clive
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Barter, John
Bourne-Arton, A.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Batsford, Brian
Box, Donald
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boyle, Sir Edward
Channon, H. P. G.


Bell, Ronald
Braine, Bernard
Chataway, Christopher


Bennett, F. M, (Torquay)
Brewis, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Berkeley, Humphry
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Cleaver, Leonard




Cole, Norman
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooper, A. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Geoffrey


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jackson, John
Robertson, Sir D.(C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
James, David
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cordle, John
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roots, William


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Sharples, Richard


Cunningham, Knox
Joseph, Sir Keith
Shaw, M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Dance, James
Kerans, Cdr, J. S.
Skeet, T. H. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smithers, Peter


Donaldson, Cmdr. c. E. M.
Kitson, Timothy
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Doughty, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speir, Rupert


Duncan, Sir James
Langford-Holt, J,
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Duthie, Sir William
Leavey, J. A.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Eden, John
Lilley, F. J. P.
Stodart, J. A.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, col. Sir Malcolm


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Storey, Sir Samuel


Emery, Peter
Longden, Gilbert
Studholme, Sir Henry


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Loveys, Walter H.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Farr, John
McAdden, Stephen
Tapsell, Peter


Felt, Anthony
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Finlay, Graeme
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Fisher, Nigel
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Temple, John M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Forrest, George
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maddan, Martin
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Freeth, Denzil
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Gardner, Edward
Marshall, Douglas
Turner, Colin


Glover, Sir Douglas
Marten, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gough, Frederick
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Cower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Morrison, John
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Gerald
Walter, David


Gurden, Harold
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Walker, Peter


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Michael
Wall, Patrick


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nugent, Sir Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr, capt. L. P. S.
Whitelaw, William


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccleef'd)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peel, John
Wise, A. R.


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Woodnutt, Mark


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pott, Percivall
Woollam, John


Hirst, Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hopkins, Alan
Pym, Francis



Hornby, R. P.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Colonel Sir H. Harrison and


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Rees, Hugh
Mr. Chichester-Clark.


Hughes-Young Michael
Renton, David

Mrs. Butler: I beg to move, in page 4, line 45, at the end to insert:
(d) provided by a local authority for housing elderly persons.
The Amendment is designed to deal with an anomaly which became apparent in Committee upstairs. The anomaly is that if a local authority, which under the Bill is entitled to only £8 subsidy per dwelling, has an acute shortage of housing for elderly people, it will not be encouraged to meet that shortage by building dwellings for them.
The Amendment is designed once again, as was the previous Amendment, to ensure that where a local authority provides housing for elderly persons it will always be able to claim the subsidy of £24. I do not think that there is any need for me to argue the case for housing the elderly, because we have debated this question several times recently. It is this Bill which has changed the Minister's attitude towards housing for the elderly. Until the Bill was introduced, the Minister was so anxious to encourage housing for the elderly that he gave a


special subsidy of £10 for one-bedroomed dwellings which were, in the main, provided for elderly people.
Under his new arrangement there is no special encouragement to provide housing for the elderly, despite the fact that this is an increasing need and despite the fact, as was mentioned on the previous Amendment, that as the overspill schemes develop, as we hope they will, although we recognise their limitations, large numbers of elderly persons will be left behind in some of our large and small cities. There are many people in that category in my own constituency in Tottenham and Wood Green. One of the great problems is that, as we build new towns and extend town development, increasing numbers of elderly people are left behind in very bad housing conditions in the older areas. Local authorities are desperately anxious to provide these people with good homes for the remainder of their lives.
The argument used by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on the previous Amendment does not apply here, because local authorities which want to do their best for elderly persons will not build multi-storey blocks for them. Local authorities which want to build the type of homes in which elderly people want to live will build lower buildings wherever they possibly can—even bungalows, when the land is available. They will do everything they can to provide the kind of housing which we all know elderly people enjoy living in. Therefore, they will not get the subsidies for multi-storey flats. They will get the ordinary housing subsidy only, which in some cases will be only £8. In some cases they may get the expensive-site subsidy.
This is an anomaly, particularly because the Minister's new arrangement of subsidy apparently has no relation to the age range of the population. He has said that if an authority has ample financial resources it is wrong that it should get a £24 subsidy for any of the dwellings it builds. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) pointed out that when the Minister talks about adequate financial resources he is applying a phrase to his own formula which in practice does not work out as the man in the street would expect it to work out. Some of the areas which are

most hard-pressed as regards housing and resources are the very areas which will receive only the £8 subsidy.
The interesting thing about subsection (2) is that the third group in respect of which the Minister will in all cases give a subsidy of £24 is housing
provided by a housing association in pursuance of authorised arrangements made with a local authority or special arrangements made with the Minister".
This group will include a great many housing associations providing houses for elderly persons. Probably the majority of them will be houses provided for elderly persons.
If such houses are provided by a housing association, they will qualify for the £24 subsidy. It will be different if they are provided by the local authority in the same area where a housing association is providing them and receiving the £24 subsidy. If the local authority is entitled under the Minister's formula to the £8 subsidy only, the dwellings it provides for the elderly will qualify for only the £8 subsidy and not for the £24 subsidy which will be received by the housing association. I do not think that the Minister by any stretch of the imagination can say that this is fair, logical or right.
Housing associations are admittedly meeting the needs of the elderly in respect of housing. So are local authorities. The need is so great that many efforts are required to satisfy it. If a local authority is to receive only the £8 subsidy, it just will not do the job. It will turn to something else and look for an easier way of dealing with its problems.
When this point was briefly discussed in Committee, the Minister said that this was an argument about nothing very much. These were his words:
If a local authority has proved by the test that it does not have substantial financial need on its housing account, it is true that it will receive a subsidy on its future old people's dwellngs reduced by 10d. a week. If, on the other hand, the test shows that it has financial need, and it qualifies for the £24, it will receive additional subsidy on every one of the future houses that it builds for the old people of 5s. 5d. a week. There is, therefore, no doubt that the general effect of the Bill will be to stimulate the building of houses for old people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D; 2nd May. 1961, c. 376–377.]


I do not see how the Minister can argue that. If the local authority is to receive £24 for any houses that it builds, there is no reason why it should build houses for elderly persons rather than houses for any other person. Conversely, if a local authority is to receive a subsidy of only £8 a house, it is very unlikely that it will provide very much housing at all, unless it is compelled to in the form of slum clearance or some other statutory need. The whole tenor of the Minister's new subsidy policy will mean that there will be no special provision for housing for the elderly. In areas of acute need and where the local authority receives only the £8 subsidy, rather than argue about whether it will get 10d. less or 5s. 5d. more per week, the local authority will say, "We cannot embark on this because the financial inducement is not sufficiently encouraging".
I therefore ask the Minister to look at this anomaly. He has had plenty of time to do so between the Committee stage and now. I ask him to accept the Amendment, which would bring housing for the elderly provided by local authorities into line with housing for the elderly provided by housing associations in the same area.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: The Government are very anxious indeed to keep up the momentum of building by local authorities for elderly people. We have been successful so far. During the last ten years the percentage of all local authority dwellings that have been of a kind suitable to, and designed for, elderly people has risen from 7 per cent. to between 25 and 30 per cent. It is our view that the Bill will maintain that momentum and, we hope, increase it.
The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), who always speaks very sincerely about these matters—and I want to deal with her speech point by point—argued that local authorities are likely to neglect the needs of old people if they do not get a higher subsidy when building for the old than when building for others. My answer to that is twofold.
First, I believe that practically every housing authority is genuinely interested in the needs of the old and is disposed to assign a very high priority to that

type of building. Secondly, on the purely materialistic level, I think that her speech failed to bring out the fact that a subsidy, whether £8 a year or £24 a year, is of greater value in relation to a house, or bungalow, or flat or flatlet built for elderly people, because these are always smaller than the ordinary house built for family purposes. Thus, the subsidy represents a proportionately larger contribution to the cost.
The reason why I believe that the Bill will sustain and, I hope, increase the momentum in the building of houses for elderly people is that, in a large number of cases, the local authority will find itself receiving not £10 a year, as hitherto, when it builds a flat or flatlet or bungalow for elderly people, but £24 a year. That, as she correctly concluded from my speech in Standing Committee, is a differential advantage of no less than 5s. 5d. a week.
The hon. Lady argues that the £24 subsidy should be made available to all local authorities for all their building for the elderly because they are building for the elderly, and regardless of whether they pass the test of resources or not. I want to deal for a moment with the question of the test of resources, because it was raised by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on the previous Amendment, and he may raise it again on this one. He sought to suggest that the test was not really fair because it looked as though great cities like Liverpool and Manchester, with big housing tasks, were, in the first instance, likely to qualify only for £8.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that, if such local authorities press on with their much needed housing work, they are likely to qualify in due course for £24, and may indeed qualify for £29 or £34 subsidies or even £40, because, for local authorities which have the heaviest tasks and the lowest resources, we are substantially increasing the total amount of subsidy they may receive under this Bill.
The point which I believe the hon. Gentleman failed to bring ++out was that the Cities of Liverpool and Manchester—which, I think, were the ones he mentioned—have potential resources in that they have hitherto been charging substantially lower rents to tenants than


other areas. According to statistics published by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, the average council rent in Liverpool in 1959–60 was 13s. 6d. a week and in Manchester 13s. 10d., whereas in rural districts in England and Wales it was 20s. 9d. I find it extraordinarily hard to accept that the rent paying capacity of the ordinary council tenant in a country village is 50 per cent. higher than the rent paying capacity of citizens of Liverpool and Manchester.
I want now to deal with the argument which was put forward so persuasively by the hon. Member for Wood Green. She is fearful that, if this Clause stands unamended, local authorities which have a substantial need for old people's houses, if they find they qualify only for the £8 subsidy, may sheer off that duty that stares them in the face and do other things which appear to be more attractive. I do not think that that will happen. The fact that they get the £8 subsidy and not the £24 subsidy proves of itself that they have greater resources, or greater potential resources, than the others. As I pointed out just now, they will be getting the flat £8 for all types of approved houses that they build, and, whatever the annual amount of the subsidy is, it will be proportionately a greater contribution in the cost of a small house or flat or flatlet built for old people than it will be in the case of a family house.
There is no disincentive to build for the old. As I judge the situation, all the authorities that she has in mind, which have a long-term housing task, will qualify for the £24 subsidy as they press on with their task, and will, at the £24 rate, get this material advantage over what they have been receiving hitherto.
The flat rate hitherto for a house suitable for elderly people has been £10 a year, and under this Bill, in the case of authorities which fail to pass the resources test, the subsidy will not be £10 but £24. For these reasons, and others which I could repeat from my speech on the previous Amendment—I think she recognised that some of the issues raised on both Amendments are the same—I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
I end as I began—by stressing that it is the belief, and certainly the purpose, of the Government that this Bill should sustain and, if possible, increase the momentum of building for the elderly, which, in so many places, is so urgently needed.

Mr. A. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) about the different treatment which might, in some localities, be accorded the local authorities and housing associations?

Mr. Brooke: The reason for that is that a housing association cannot have the same financial resources as a local authority. In the ordinary case, a local authority which qualifies for only the £8 rate of subsidy is almost certain to have behind it a large pool of houses and flats built before the Second World War at considerably lower cost than today's. In any case, even if it were not for that factor, a local authority has implicitly much more substantial financial resources, or potential financial resources, than any housing association. Housing associations are doing a much needed work—if an association's work is not needed it will not get the subsidy—and could not be the subject of a resources test as a local authority can be.
I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, South West (Mr. A. Evans) will not envy a housing association because it receives a £24 subsidy, for I believe that it is most desirable to give opportunity to housing associations which are ready to take on these very onerous tasks, and certainly I can see no way in which the general principle of a resources test could be applied to a housing association. But there is no desire here whatever to discriminate one way or the other or to try to slap down the local authority in favour of a housing association. I come back to the point again; the only local authorities which will qualify for not more than £8 a year subsidy are those which pass the resources test and, therefore, have substantial or potentially substantial financial resources such as no housing association could possibly possess.

Mr. Herbert Butler: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about housing associations,


because the Parliamentary Secretary is due to come to my constituency to look at a small housing association—the Bethnal Green and Hackney Housing Association, which is doing extremely useful work over a period of years, for which we are very grateful. I have known this association for perhaps, thirty years, during which time its contribution to our housing problem has been very small, due, no doubt, as the Minister indicated, to the nature of its organisation and the people associated with it.
I was amazed that it should have been necessary for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) to press the Minister to tell the Committee why a housing association, which consists of people getting together because they want to mitigate the misery of all sorts of people, should automatically be given a position of advantage over the local authority.
Another factor which must be borne in mind is that if a local authority decides to build it has to adhere to standards that do not necessarily have to be observed either by private enterprise or housing associations. I do not think that we have yet had an acceptable explanation why local authorities who are providing houses for elderly persons cannot automatically get the £24. Once again, we ask the Minister to attend to that.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The Minister has just drawn attention, as he does on almost every speech he makes on housing, to the greatly increased proportion of houses for elderly people in which he takes great pride. There is not an hon. Member present who does not want to see more houses provided for old people, but if he regards this as one of the Government's housing achievements he is sorely mistaken. The Government's housing programme for local authorities has been halved since 1954 from 240,000 to 120,000 units last year, of which, according to the Minister's own words, a much higher proportion is in the form of one-bedroomed accommodation for elderly people.
In other words, as a result of the Government's policy of raising interest rates, local government building has not only been halved but has, in fact, been still further reduced 'because a considerable and increasing proportion of the accom-

modation consists of one-bedroomed houses. Even if the Minister said that he would increase that accommodation by 100 per cent., it would really mean an even greater reduction in the number of houses available for those with families.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said at the Conservative Party conference last year. Speaking to the wild men behind him, he said:
Don't let us kid ourselves. There is no alternative for most people to local council housing if they are to get a house at all.
The number of these houses has been cut, and cut even more because a large proportion of the housing accommodation consists of one-bedroomed houses.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: However much the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) likes to juggle with percentages, my right hon. Friend deserves the congratulations of the Committee on the very substantial increase there has been in the last few years in the provision of housing for elderly people as a result of the encouragement given to local authorities to build one-bedroomed houses. I do not believe that the rearrangement of subsidies under this Bill will be any disincentive to the continuation of such building.
It has not been sufficiently stressed in this discussion that those local authorities which qualify for the higher subsidy are getting the subsidy for elderly people increased from £10 to £24. The subsidies are not given on the basis of the size of the building. There is, therefore, a great encouragement to build the one-bedroomed flats whether the local authority qualifies only for £8 or for £24, because the subsidy is so much more valuable to the authority in relation to the small dwelling—

Mr. H. Butler: How is it an encouragement if the local authority builds in accordance with the demands of its housing problem? If the demand is for so many three-bedroomed, two-bedroomed and one-bedroomed houses, where does the encouragement come in?

Mr. Page: There is encouragement financially, as all subsidies must be, but no local authority can supply housing for every type of demand on its waiting-list—

Mr. Butler: It aims to.

Mr. Page: Of course it does, but it would be a valiant local authority that could meet every demand there was on its waiting list.
There is also, in Clause 5—the flat subsidies—an encouragement to local authorities to build one-roomed dwellings on the ground floors and first floors of blocks of flats. As the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has quite rightly pointed out, as this movement of the younger families out of the town continues, the elderly people will be left in the centres of the towns. The obvious development of the centres is dwellings in flats, and I should have thought that the right way to cope with the old people requiring dwellings was to design one-bedroomed dwellings on the ground floors and lower floors of blocks of flats. By building blocks of flats the local authorities will get the very much higher subsidies provided by Clause 5—

Mrs. Butler: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea of the management difficulties that arise when elderly people are housed on the ground floors of multi-storey blocks of flats? The difficulties are quite astronomical. Children playing round annoy the old people, so do the people living above them, and so it goes on.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am still not quite satisfied that either the Minister or the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has dealt seriously with the problem before the Committee. In the first place, I think that it is recognised on both sides that the provision of units of accommodation for elderly people is becoming more urgent than ever because of the increasing proportion of elderly people in the population. The Minister has made great play about the increasing numbers of this type of dwelling which have been made available in the past ten years. I believe that he said there was an increase from 7 per cent. to 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. If that reflected his personal view of the matter, I should have thought that he should have given far greater consideration to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler).
One of the things I cannot understand is the argument advanced by the

right hon. Gentleman that the value of the subsidy to the local authority is higher in the building of smaller properties whether it gets £8, £10 or more. He suggested that the value of the subsidy, whatever it may be, when related to old people's dwellings is higher than in relation to other dwellings because of the size of the old people's dwellings He seemed to imply that it would be inequitable to increase the subsidy. I should have thought that precisely the same argument would apply in the case of housing associations. If in resisting the Amendment he applies that type of argument to the request for help for local authorities, it is equally incumbent upon him to use the argument in relation to housing associations.
The Minister hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) did not envy housing associations. That is the type of smear tactic which the Minister was constantly using in Standing Committee with reference to hon. Members on this side of the Committee. There is no question of envy. The question which is being put is that, if the arguments advanced by the Minister in commending the subsidy for housing associations are valid, are they not equally valid for local authorities? I make no criticism, and have made none in my many contributions in Committee, of the housing associations. If the Minister argues that, irrespective of the type of dwelling they build, housing associations are entitled to the higher subsidy, he is seeking to argue for a change of emphasis of building. If housing associations set up specifically for the purpose of creating units of accommodation for elderly people can get an increased subsidy from the Government as envisaged by the Bill as it stands, that should stimulate them and tend to restrict the activities of local authorities.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said that local authorities cannot respond to every demand made on them through their waiting lists, but obviously they have to try to respond. Every local authority tries to balance its housing programme. If a housing association is in the area, there is the temptation to the local authority to see how many houses can be erected by the association to relieve the authority of some of its work.
It is incumbent on the Minister to say why he is prepared to give the higher subsidies in respect of old people's dwellings. Everyone in the Committee feels it essential to extend the provision of old people's dwellings. That is likely to become more necessary in future because of the ageing of the population. Why should the Minister apply a higher subsidy to housing associations and argue the case for that yet refuse to apply it to local authorities?
If his past remarks are a reflection of his real intention, when he says that he wants to see the various organisations, local authorities, housing associations and development corporations, all playing their full part in the provision of houses, it is necessary for him to play fair with the local authorities as well as with the housing associations.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: I have listened to the arguments of the Minister concerning the qualifications and smallness of the numbers of houses built by housing associations. I do not think that the Minister was very accurate in his statement. In the North there is the North-Eastern Housing Association. It owns many more houses than are owned by some local authorities in the North. If that association is qualified to obtain the £24 subsidy for every house it builds irrespective of need, surely the local authorities are entitled to the same treatment. Local authorities are being subjected to a means test because they have done good work. Probably the Minister would use the term "needs test".
The association has a number of properties for which it can charge reasonable rents for the purpose of meeting the needs of the housing situation. Is the Minister to say that, because of the smallness of the rent which was charged before the war, a local authority is to get only £8 and not £24 in subsidy? If such is the case I am very much afraid that there will be an outcry.
Why must the old people be attacked again? It is all very well for the Minister to say that a local authority can get the £8 subsidy, but we have to look at the cost of building houses. A house for an aged person may cost £1,000 or £1,200. If the authority has to pay interest at the rate of 6¼ per cent. and meet all the expenses which have to be

added, the rent will work out at about 25s. or 28s. a week for those old people. If the authority is to get only the £8 subsidy many old people will have their rents increased. Probably the Minister will say that they can go to the National Assistance Board, but large numbers of people are too proud to go to the National Assistance Board although they cannot afford these rents.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Surely the hon. Member realises that it is within the power of the local authority to have a scheme whereby those people can be subsidised out of the rates and there is no need for them to go to the Assistance Board? It is usual to attack the Government and to say that the Government are driving people on to National Assistance when all the Government are doing is to say that there is a certain amount which should be paid out of Government grant and a certain amount by way of rent according to the local authority's scheme, and that the rest may be charged upon the rates.

Mr. Symonds: That is the most wonderful illustration of incompetence in local government affairs which I have encountered in thirty years' experience of local government. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) says that they can apply to the local authority to be subsidised. I wonder what the Minister would say to that. Hon. Members opposite have said that local authorities should not make any rate contribution to the rents of local authorities. Elderly people will have to pay full rent and rates, and it is not right that they should be penalised a second time.
5.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said that elderly people could be accomodated in ground floor one-bedroomed flats in blocks of flats. I wonder whether the hon. Member has ever lived in a 'one-bedroomed flat in a block of six or seven storeys. I wonder what he would say at seven o'clock in the evening, or at six o'clock in the morning. It would be bad enough for him, but for old people it would be absolutely intolerable.
If hon. Members on this side can melt your heart, Mr. Minister—I know that you are doing a difficult job, at least


you say that you are—and there must be some turning point, because you have said that you have some sympathy for the old people for whom you have been pleading—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): Order. The hon. Member must address the Chair.

Mr. Symonds: I am sorry, Sir Henry —I beg your pardon, Mr. Hynd.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic towards the payment of a subsidy of £24 in respect of the accommodation of old people by local authorities as well as by housing associations. The Minister has previously said that he has much sympathy for old people and that there is still a great deal to be done for them. I hope that he will accept the Amendment and give local authorities the consideration which is to be given to housing associations.

Mr. M. Stewart: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but the borough which I represent has the highest proportion of old people in its population of any locality in the Kingdom, and I should not like this Amendment to pass without saying a few words about it.
In this, as in the previous Amendment, we ask for special help to be given to a particular kind of local authority work. But there is a great difference between this and any similar Amendment which might be proposed. It is that if the housing of elderly persons is encouraged, not only those elderly people are benefited, because in a number of cases an elderly person is enabled to move out of accommodation which is too large for him, that accommodation then becoming available for a family. Thus, not only is the elderly person directly benefited, but others are benefited. In this Amendment we ask for special help for elderly people without its being suggested that that in any way will prejudice what local authorities might do for other classes of person in need of housing.
There has been much argument about the past progress which has or has not been made in the housing of elderly people, but at the end of the argument no one will dispute that the proportion of our total council housing effort devoted to elderly people has increased in recent years, as the Minister said, from

7 per cent. to 25 per cent. I remind the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who used the phrase "juggling with percentages", that it was the Minister who first introduced percentages into the argument and did not mention, of course, that the 25 per cent. is 25 per cent. of a very much smaller total than the 7 per cent. was at the beginning of the day.

Mr. Graham Page: Nevertheless, the hon. Member will agree that it is an absolute increase in figures.

Mr. Stewart: Certainly. There is an absolute increase, but it is substantially less than the percentage increase.
There is an absolute increase which in previous housing debates the Government have ascribed to their wisdom, as they claim, in their subsidy policy of giving a special differential in favour of the housing of the elderly. There has been a momentum in the housing of the elderly and the engine which provided that momentum, as the Government can rightly claim up to a point, has been the differentially favourable subsidy treatment for the housing of the elderly.
Whatever else we must say about the Bill, it cuts off that differential. At the beginning of his answer the Minister said that the Government were determined to keep up the momentum in the housing of the elderly and then went on to explain that they intended to keep up the momentum by switching off the engine. There is no doubt that the differential in favour of the housing of the elderly by local authorities is removed by the Bill if it is passed without this Amendment. Whatever else may be said about the Bill, there is no doubt about that.
I was not surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary was not here when we began to discuss the Amendment, because in his speeches on the housing problem invariably his most purple patch has been about the housing of the elderly. If any of my hon. Friends have failed in the course of a housing debate to mention housing of the elderly, it was the Parliamentary Secretary who reproached them with it and who emphasised how the Government's success in that respect was due to that very subsidy provision which is removed by the Bill and which, by this Amendment, we are trying to replace.
The Minister's argument was that we should consider the resources of the local authorities. He said that authorities with not very large resources would get the £24 subsidy anyway and that if an authority was to get only the £8 subsidy, that must be because it had quite splendid resources, but we are now discussing the provision by local authorities of housing for those of its citizens who usually have fewer resources. When a local authority increases the provision it makes for the housing of the elderly it usually takes an increasing burden upon itself. Although it would not be true to say that to be elderly and to be poor is the same thing, it is none the less true to say that poverty is a good deal commoner among the elderly than among other age groups.
The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) made a very useful intervention. He suggested that local authorities should provide special help from the rates to those of their elderly citizens whom they rehoused.

Mr. Goodhew: I said that they had it in their power to adapt their rent policies so that people of the kind to which the hon. Member is referring should not be driven to National Assistance. That does not mean that it is needed for elderly people only. Local authorities should adapt their rent schemes.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member's re- marks must have been made in respect of elderly people, otherwise they would have been out of order.

Mr. Goodhew: Mr. Goodhew indicated assent.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member was saying that if elderly people have difficulty in paying their rents local authorities can help them by means of a rent rebate scheme or a differential rent scheme which will, in effect, put part of the burden of their rents on to the rates. That is clear enough. That means that we cannot talk all the time—as the Minister does—about the resources of local authorities, because every time a local authority adds one of these dwellings to its store of houses it adds a liability rather than an asset. The hon. Member was arguing particularly that these houses for the elderly ought to be

regarded as a liability from the point of view of the ratepayers.
That is why we say that special help should come from the Exchequer. Local authorities vary in their proportion of elderly people. Mine has one of the highest proportions in the land. That is not due to any merit or demerit of the local authority. But what the Committee ought to say is that dealing with problems of the elderly is a national responsibility. It is not a proper answer to say "Shove it on the rates". Quite frequently an area containing a high proportion of elderly people is also an area where resources in general are not so high as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom.
What we are asking, therefore, is that part of the cost involved should be borne by subsidy, which means that it should be shared more fairly than rates will share it among the whole body of citizens. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite who are always arguing, on housing matters, that the burden should be placed on those shoulders that can bear it, and that help should be given where it is needed, would help us in this case and support the Amendment, thereby shifting some of the burden from the elderly people and the ratepayers in certain districts to its rightful place, where it is borne more generally by the whole body of citizens.
Finally, the Minister has not dealt adequately with the very telling point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) about housing associations. It is true that we cannot apply the Minister's resources test to housing associations. It is true, in one sense, that we can say that they do not have the resources of local authorities, in that they do not normally possess large housing estates. But if the Minister brings that point into the argument he must remember that local authorities have obligations to fulfil which do not fall on housing associations.
We should, therefore, examine the whole problem of the income or potential income of local authorities and the many increasing duties which the central Government are imposing on them. We cannot justify the absurd situation in which, in the same locality, the provision of


housing for the elderly is being carried on in part by the local authority and in part by a housing association and one is getting a higher rate of subsidy from the Government than the other. Still less can we justify it when we remember that in all the arguments that we have had about housing associations in our discussion of the Bill it has been generally assumed that, as a broad and general rule, a housing association caters for people who, although not by any stretch of the imagination wealthy people, are somewhat better off than the ordinary council tenant.
5.45 p.m.
We are then left with the situation in which, in the same area, the local authority may be providing housing accommodation for rather poorer and elderly people and getting a subsidy of only £8 per dwelling for doing so, while a local housing association may be providing accommodation for rather better-off elderly people and being provided with a subsidy of £24 per dwelling for doing so.
For all those reasons it seems right to press the Amendment. The Minister knows that it is absurd to suggest that we envy the housing associations. We are not suggesting that they should in any way be damaged. What we are saying is that local authorities, which have the heavier task and which are held more responsible by the public for such a problem as dealing with difficult tenants—which a housing association can get rid of—ought not to be put at

a disadvantage as compared with the housing association. I hope that my hon. Friend will press the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke: I want to correct one genuine misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that in the context of the Bill we were thinking of housing associations as providing for people who are perhaps a little better off than the ordinary local authority tenant. That is so in the context of Clause 7, but the Government are contemplating that housing associations may also be able to draw subsidies under the Bill when they are doing work exactly parallel to the work of the local authority and, one hopes, in concert and co-operation with that local authority. There are two different classes of work that housing associations may do, which may merge into each other.

Mr. Stewart: What I have said is a description of what is; what the Minister has said can only be a description of what may be in the future, if the Bill has the result which he hopes for. Further, I do not think that it makes sense if, with a housing association and a local authority providing dwellings for elderly people in very similar circumstances, one should receive a lower subsidy than the other. For all those reasons I hope that my hon. Friend will press the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 174, Noes 240.

Division No. 221.]
AYES
[5.48 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Crossman, R. H. S.
Grey, Charles


Albu, Austen
Cullen, Mrs, Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grimond, J.


Awbery, Stan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Bence, Cyril
Deer, George
Hannan, William


Benson, Sir George
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hayman, F. H.


Boardman, H.
Delargy, Hugh
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics. s.w.)
Diamond, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Bowles, Frank
Dodds, Norman
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Boyden, James
Donnelly, Desmond
Holman, Percy


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Drlberg, Tom
Holt, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Houghton, Douglas


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Albert
Hoy, James H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Finch, Harold
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Eric
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Callaghan, James
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hunter, A. E.


Chapman, Donald
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Chetwynd, George
Galpern, Sir Myer
Janner, Sir Barnett


Cliffe, Michael
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ginsburg, David
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Crosland, Anthony
Greenwood, Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)




Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stones, William


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parker, John
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Kelley, Richard
Parkin, B. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Kenyon, Clifford
Pavitt, Laurence
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Swain, Thomas


King, Dr. Horace
Pentland, Norman
Swingler, Stephen


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Popplewell, Ernest
Sylvester, George


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Prentice, R. E.
Symonds, J. B.


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Logan, David
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Loughlin, Charles
Randall, Harry
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rankin, John



McCann, John

Thornton, Ernest



Redhead, E. G.
Timmons, John


MacColl, James
Rhodes, H.



Mclnnes, James

Tomney, Frank


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wade, Donald


McLeavy, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Edwin


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Warbey, William


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Weitzman, David


Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mapp Charles
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Whitlock, William


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Marsh, Richard
Short, Edward
Willey, Frederick


Mason, Roy
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, Li. (Abertillery)


Mendelson, J. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mitchison, G. R.
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Monslow, Walter
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Moody, A. S.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefied)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Moyle, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mulley, Frederick
Snow, Julian
Zilliacus, K.


Neal, Harold
Sorensen, R. W.



Oliver, G. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oram, A. E.
Steele, Thomas
Mr. Lawson and


Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Charles A. Howell.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Heald, Rt. Hon, Sir Lionel


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Critchley, Julian
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Allason, James
Curran, Charles
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Atkins, Humphrey
Currie, G. B. H.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Barlow, Sir John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Barter, John
Dance, James
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
de Ferranti, Basil
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Holland, Philip


Berkeley, Humphry
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hopkins, Alan


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Doughty, Charles
Hornby, R. P.


Bidgood, John C.
du Cann. Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Biggs-Davison, John
Duncan, Sir James
Howard, Hon. C. R. (St. Ives)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Duthie, Sir William
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bishop, F. P.
Eden, John
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Black, Sir Cyril
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bossom, Clive
Elliott, R.w.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Emery, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Box, Donald
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Jackson, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Farey-Jones, F. W.
James, David


Boyle, Sir Edward
Farr, John
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Brewis, John
Fell, Anthony
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Finlay, Graeme
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fisher, Nigel
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Joseph, Sir Keith


Bryan, Paul
Forrest, George
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Buck, Antony
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Bullard, Denys
Freeth, Denzil
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gammans, Lady
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Burden, F. A.
Gardner, Edward
Kershaw, Anthony


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kitson, Timothy


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Langford-Holt, J.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Goodhew, Victor
Leavey, J. A.


Cary, Sir Robert
Cower, Raymond
Lilley, F. J. P.


Channon, H. P. G.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Chataway, Christopher
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Litchfield, Capt. John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Longbottom, Charles


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Loveys, Walter H.


Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cleaver, Leonard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McAdden, Stephen


Cole, Norman
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
MacArthur, Ian


Cooke, Robert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McLaren, Martin


Cooper, A. E.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Corfield. f. V.
Hastings, Stephen
McMaster, Stanley R.







Maddan, Martin
Ramsden, James
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Temple, John M.


Marshall, Douglas
Rees, Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Mawby, Ray
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Renton, David
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Turner, Colin


Mills, Stratton
Ridsdale, Julian
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rippon, Geoffrey
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Morrison, John
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)
van Straubenzee, W. P.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Nabarro, Gerald
Robson Brown, Sir William
Vickers, Miss Joan


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Roots, William
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Noble, Michael
Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nugent, Sir Richard
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walder, David


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sharples, Richard
Walker, Peter


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Shaw, M.
Wall, Patrick


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Ward, Dame Irene


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon, Harold


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Smithers, Peter
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Partridge, E.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Peel, John
Speir, Rupert
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wise, A. R.


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Stevens, Geotfrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pitt, Miss Edith
Stodart, J. A.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pott, Percivall
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Woodnutt, Mark


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Storey, Sir Samuel
Woollam, John


Prior, J. M. L.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Worsley, Marcus


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)



Pym, Francis
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. F. Pearson.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(OTHER DWELLINGS PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, at the end to insert:
Provided that the amount of the annual Exchequer subsidy shall be not less than twenty-four pounds in the case of any approved dwelling provided for the accommodation of any members of a family residing in a dwelling to which paragraphs (c), (d), (e) or (f) of subsection (2) of section three of the said Act of 1958 or subsection (1) or paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section three of this Act applies and which is overcrowded within the meaning of section seventy-seven of the Housing Act, 1957.
This appears to be a rather complicated Amendment, but the short point with which it is designed to deal is what may be popularly called the problem of rehousing the children of overspill. In a number of ways we have tried to find a solution to what we regard as a difficult problem affecting certain areas. Now we have produced this solution as an alternative to some which we discussed during the Committee stage. We propose that the resources test should not apply to local authority housing which is used for certain purposes about which I will say something in a moment. In respect of housing used for these purposes a local authority should get its

full subsidy of £24 regardless of the result of a resources test.
The purposes to which we refer are dwellings
provided for the accommodation of any members of a family residing in a dwelling to which paragraphs (c), (d), (e) or (f) of subsection (2) of section three of the said Act of 1958 or subsection (1) or paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section three of this Act applies …
6.0 p.m
I will explain what these Sections are. Section 3 (2, c) of the 1958 Act says:
… provided by a local authority in the course of a scheme of town development as defined by the Town Development Act. 1952, carried out with the approval of the Minister wholly or partly in the area of that authority; or …
Subsection (2, d) says:
… provided by a local authority for the accommodation of persons coming from outside the area of that authority in order to meet the urgent needs of industry …
Subsection (2, e) says:
… provided by the local authority of a congested or overpopulated area in some other area as part of a scheme of comprehensive development the general character of which is …
And subsection (2, f)
… provided by a development corporation otherwise than in pursuance of authorised arrangements.
That is the existing law under the 1958 Act. Subsection (1, a) of Clause 3


of the Bill deals with town development, subsection (1, b) deals with rehousing in another area as part of comprehensive development by the corporation, and subsection (2, a) deals with the urgent needs of industry. The thread running through all of this is the fact that the dwellings are provided to rehouse people in an area other than the area in which they live.
That seems as convenient a way as one can achieve to reach some kind of definition of overspill. It is a narrow definition, because a number of people come into the reception areas other than under one of these schemes and then an even more difficult position might arise.
In order to arrive at some conclusion, we have confined ourselves to those cases which are already recognised in legislation as being special cases. We say that where a dwelling is provided to accommodate people living in overspill areas, then in the cases of those houses that are overcrowded the full subsidy of £24 shall apply and be payable regardless of the resources tests. This affects a number of different types of cases. It arises in a place like Kirkby, for example, and I mentioned this in Standing Committee. This area is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) where this problem is acute. This area has attracted an increase of population comparable with that of a new town and nearly all the houses have been provided by the Liverpool City Corporation to rehouse Liverpool citizens.
The same kind of problem can arise in other areas in which houses have been provided for people coming from the congested areas into the reception areas. In due course these families increase and multiply by the ordinary course of nature. Their children grow up and they, in turn, require additional accommodation. In some cases this creates an extremely difficult problem for the reception area local authority, and where a housing authority has its own housing list, the problem of rehousing its own population exists.
In an area such as Kirkby, where the ownership remains with the Liverpool Corporation, the corporation has a desperate housing problem and needs all the houses that it has to rehouse its own

population. In such a case an exceptionally heavy burden is placed on the reception area.
The Minister, in discussing a previous Amendment, said that overspill was a different matter. He said that when talking about the problems of town development and the rehousing of old people. The Minister recognised that there are special problems connected with overspill. Later he made the point that local authorities differ from housing associations inasmuch as they nearly always have a large reserve of pre-war property available to ease the strain on their newly-built houses. In both those respects, the special group to which the Amendment refers comes within the need for protection, for in the first place they are dealing with overspill. This problem is not just one of the area of the housing authority itself. Those who have come in are welcome immigrants into the area. But a special problem is created for a local authority, often with small resources in a small area, which must face the problem of rehousing people who have come from outside its area. That is the thread running through all these cases.
Another reason why they should get special treatment is that an area such as that I have described does not have very much pre-war housing accommodation available because, in the nature of the place, it has either started from scratch or has expanded rapidly. In this connection, I would once again mention Kirkby, which I know well because I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton the pastoral care of the Whiston Rural District. In the short time that I have been connected with that area it has grown enormously, until now it is a large urban district, larger than my own constituency of Widnes. That has all happened within the last ten years.
That sort of problem of growth and the strain it creates is very much like the strain on a new town. But the local urban district councils must tackle this type of problem themselves. They therefore require extra financial assistance because of the very special problems that are involved. While that is one type of case, I do not say that it is the only type. Throughout the country there are


many examples where special problems are created by the need to find accommodation for the children of people who have come into an area where no arrangements have been made for providing for the children of those families when they, in their turn, grow up and require accommodation.
We suggest, therefore, in order to take such houses out of the resources test that there should be two requirements: first, that they should be providing accommodation for people living in these dwellings provided for people coming from outside and, secondly, that they should be overcrowded. That does not create problems of definition because the definition is already in the Act. It would seem, therefore, that these arrangements would themselves provide the necessary test, would meet the real need involved and would take a load off the shoulders of a great many authorities.

Mr. John Parker: I support the Amendment, as an hon. Member who represents one of these reception areas. As I am sure the Minister is aware, a large part of the population of my constituency consists of L.C.C. tenants who live at Becontree Estate. The principal object of my local housing authority has been and is to find homes for the children of these tenants. We have an agreement with the L.C.C. by which a certain number of vacancies are provided, though nothing like the requisite number of houses is allocated. Only a limited number is provided, and of course those houses which are allocated are not necessarily within our boundaries. They may be on any L.C.C. estate, or in some other part of Essex or even in Central London. That means that a large part of our growing population cannot find houses in the neighbourhood unless the council is able to build them, and there is only a limited amount of land on which to build houses. Therefore, a very big problem is involved in trying to house each generation. The L.C.C. is not anxious to hand over its main estates because of the housing problems in London. The L.C.C. wishes to fill any vacancies which do occur with Londoners, which is natural.
Our local housing authority has to give a lot of its attention to trying to provide homes for the children of L.C.C.

tenants, and this is a continuing factor because new families come in from the L.C.C. area and they constitute a big charge on local funds. If assistance could be given in the manner proposed by the Amendment it would be a big help in solving our problem. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke: I thought it likely that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) would intervene in the debate on this Amendment, because from my experience as a member of the London County Council I am aware that there are around Landon certain areas which have L.C.C. estates within their boundaries and which find it difficult to cope with the cases of overcrowding that arise.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this Amendment would apply only to houses that are built in the future, and in so far as a local authority has already built houses to provide for overcrowding of that character created by incoming populations, then those existing houses would not qualify.
I have been seeking to understand the argument of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and I appreciate the problem which he is trying to solve. He is seeking to find a means of helping a local authority which finds itself burdened with a task for which it does not feel responsible, in that the overcrowding has occurred not among its own aboriginal citizens, so to speak, but among the incoming families. I wonder whether it would be right to try to solve the problem in this way.
The hon. Member for Widnes spoke of the difficulty of an authority such as he had in mind which was, as it were, landed with a large number of houses built under some overspill or industrial scheme, not for the people who had been living in the area all the time. He pointed out that an authority like that might have relatively few pre-war houses and might face big tasks as the families of the newcomers grew up. But I would have judged that it was just that sort of authority which was likely to qualify automatically for the £24 under this Bill. The very fact that it has few prewar houses and that most of its council houses have had to be built at post-war


costs will mean that in all probability such an authority will automatically qualify for the £24.
6.15 p.m.
As I read this Amendment, it would only benefit an authority which would otherwise qualify for only the £8, and I should have thought it was an exceptional sort of authority in a situation such as the hon. Member has described that would be likely to qualify for only the £8. The qualification for £8 shows that it has real or potential financial resources of a considerable amount, and I am bound to say that from my analysis of the case the ordinary authority which has had to do most of its building since the war is among the less likely to pass the resources test.
For that reason I doubt whether this Amendment would help those local authorities which the hon. Member is particularly seeking to help in what is not wholly a financial problem. It is a housing problem generally—where to find room for the people. I believe that is a task which the local authority has to assume. I think that in the generality of cases, such a local authority is likely to qualify for the £24.
In any case, I am sure that we should be wrong to legislate as though the people living in those houses which have been built for the newcomers were a separate and special character of person for the whole period of sixty years during which the houses would be subsidised. That is contrary to the social intent of these schemes. People living in new towns do not want the fact to be stressed that they are new townsmen. They want their new towns to become as quickly as possible ordinary and regular towns. Similarly, in all these places there is a general desire that the population should be assimilated and should not be thought of perpetually as strangers and foreigners. This Amendment would make special provision available for a period of sixty years if any overcrowding occurred in those houses.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention the other case which also occurs where overcrowding emerges while the development is still going on. That may well happen, but there again I do not think that this Amendment would help,

because if the development is still going on there is no reason why the overcrowding should not be dealt with through ordinary building by the authority which is doing the new building for the newcomers, or by some kind of move or exchange.
If a family becomes overcrowded because more children come along, it is perfectly possible for that family to be moved into a larger house by the authority which is doing the building and which owns the houses, and a new family will come into the house which that family has vacated, in which case both those houses will receive the overspill subsidy. The same is true if, let us say, in a new town the son grows up and marries and wants a house of his own. If he has a job in that new town he will have a reasonable claim on the development corporation for a house, and again both of those houses will receive the overspill subsidy.
The Amendment is directed solely to that case where the local authority in the receiving area for one reason or another does not qualify for more than the £8 subsidy, the reason being that it passes the resources test. This, I think, will be a rare case and I could not advise the Committee to legislate for that case for a period of fifty or more years ahead because I do not think that it would be right to single out that type of house or family for special subsidy treatment.
If the hon. Member for Widnes, who is very knowledgeable about these matters and has great local authority experience, will consider it from the point of view of the local authority, he will appreciate that a queer position would arise forty years hence if of two families, both of which had been living in the area for many years and which had become overcrowded, one should qualify the authority for the £24 rate of subsidy simply because of the people who came into the house when it was built many years before whereas the other would not because the house was a local authority house which had been there all the time.
I appreciate that in places like Dagenham, in the second stage after the people have come in from outside, difficulties in overcrowding occur. One always hopes that the authority, if it is an overspill authority, will look sympathetically at such cases and see whether it can


give any assistance. I must advise the Committee that it would not be right to try to solve this social problem of overcrowding occurring in a house which had been built for an incoming family, by enabling the local authority of the area into which the people have come, to qualify automatically for the £24 subsidy if it were to rehouse the second family.

Mr. A. Evans: The Minister granted that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) had presented a case of some merit inasmuch as he agreed that families which went to reception areas did increase and there arose the problem of housing the offspring of the families exported there. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) instanced his own constituency where the problem has been a pressing one for many years. The Minister says that he knows that the problem is there but, he says, in most cases a local authority would qualify under the financial test for the £24. That may well be so in most cases, but there will be the local authority which does not qualify under the financial test for the £24 and receives only the £8.
The Amendment provides that the test would not be applied to receiving authorities which face the problem of overcrowding the subsequent generation. It is designed not to apply the financial test to those authorities in respect of houses built for the new arrivals when the families grow. That is a sound proposition. After all, the financial test is applied at a particular time and, in effect, it determines whether at that time a local authority has sufficient financial resources to fulfil its housing obligations with the lower subsidy rate. In the case put by my hon. Friend, we are not looking at the immediate situation at any one time. We are considering the movement of affairs in the future, the growth of families, and the children who will in due course become adult and require rehousing.
This is a real problem facing local authorities in areas where new towns have been built. The Harlow Urban District Council, for instance, is in difficulty. The new town is populated mainly by people from the Metropolitan area. It is a great success, a credit to the Labour Government who initiated the legislation, but, of course, with the passage of

time there has developed the problem of housing the grown-up children of those who went to the new town in the first place.
The Minister should reconsider the position of receiving authorities faced with the problem of overcrowding as a result of new town development or development under a town development scheme and dispense with the financial test. Such authorities have more than just the immediate future to bear in mind. They have to think ahead and plan their housing for the rising generation of young people, always remembering that the number of people in the new generation is likely to be very large in the new towns. I am sure that the problem will grow, as the offspring of the original deportees—to call them such—to the new towns grow to adulthood. If the Minister does not do something about it today, some future Minister with a better grasp of the problem will have to grapple with it.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I represent part of an exporting authority, not an importing authority. The exporting authority is just as interested—to some extent more interested—in the export of tenants from its overcrowded houses as the importing authority is in receiving them.
I will put the particular case of Birmingham, which qualifies for the full subsidy. Sufficient post-war houses have been built in Birmingham to give rise to expense qualifying it for the £24 subsidy, but when Birmingham is negotiating with surrounding authorities, some of these authorities may have a comparatively small amount of post-war housing and a large amount of pre-war houses. They may not qualify for the higher subsidy. If they do not, they will take a long time before they incur the future expense of catering for Birmingham tenants and building houses for them. The Minister should reconsider the matter from that point of view.
If the Minister wishes the overspill problem to be dealt with, he should ensure that the greatest financial inducement is offered to the importing authorities. It is not a matter of helping themselves only; they are helping the overcrowded areas to get rid of their surplus tenants. Therefore, even though an importing authority may not have a


large pool of post-war housing, it is at the same time the Minister's job to encourage them to build houses to cater for people rather than allow them to be overcrowded.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I apologise to the Minister because I did not hear all his speech. Judging by what I did hear, I had the impression that he suggests that this is an exceptional or incidental problem to the bigger issue which he faces in the Bill. I urge that it is a much bigger problem than he seems to suggest. It affects more than just Dagenham. It affects Reading. It affects a large part of the south of England. It is very emphatically a problem in Slough, which is part of my constituency.
6.30 p.m.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are a receiving town in two senses. We now have the large L.C.C. estates of Langley and Britwell which are taking people from slum or overcrowded areas in London. We are a receiving town in another sense. I suppose that we are at the moment one of the most prosperous towns in the country, with hundreds of vacancies at the employment exchange. The demand for labour is so great that one firm is offering a bribe to any citizens in Slough who introduce workers to be employed by that firm. Because of this, workers and their families are pouring into Slough, but there is no accommodation to pro- vide for them. The overcrowding in our houses is appalling.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that for a town in that condition the proposal in the Amendment becomes almost critically important. We do not expect under the Bill to reach more than the £8 level. We find it very difficult to find space on which to build. We merely have the space which is provided because Hawker's aerodrome is now becoming available and we shall build a new housing estate there which will necessarily have to include a considerable number of multi-storey buildings. Under conditions of this very critical character, it is tremendously important that some provision such as is suggested in the Amendment should be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. I urge him to reconsider the view which he has

expressed and to seek to meet the problem which is illustrated by Slough but which is a problem in many other towns.

Mr. MacColl: My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) said that he missed most of the Minister's speech. I assure him that, for those who are students in this exotic and obscure field, we had a piece of vintage Brooke. He began by saying that this Amendment would deal with only a small part of the problem. When I was speaking, I was aware of a sort of ugly murmur behind me which seemed to be saying, "MacColl again being the inadequate, moderate reformist, not producing nearly enough". Then there was the right hon. Gentleman in the van saying, "We are going to do something about this vital problem, but the Amendment would not deal with many bad cases." Then there was a pause while we all got our handkerchiefs out as the right hon. Gentleman said that he grieved for these authorities and for their problem and deeply sympathised with many of the difficulties with which they were faced. We were keyed up for some shattering revelation of what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do when the Bill reached another place, but he ended his speech so characteristically by saying, "I cannot advise the Committee to do anything about this at all."
The Minister suggested that our Amendment would not solve this difficult problem. I merely put it to him that he is paid to solve these problems. We are not. If he, with all the resources of skill which he has behind him, cannot solve this problem, he should get out and let someone else have a shot at trying to solve it. He has created the difficult problem of finding accommodation for growing families of people who are moving into these areas and are finding it almost impossible to get accommodation. It is for the right hon. Gentleman to produce an answer to this problem. He cannot merely say that we have not produced an answer.
He told us that if the Amendment were accepted it would mean continuing to pay the subsidy for sixty years when perhaps it was not needed. I dare hardly whisper to him whether he has forgotten Clause 2. He has the brake


Clause. He could use it if the need for it arose. He is taking power, much to our regret, to put the brake on. If he is taking it for evil reasons, why cannot he use it for good reasons? This might very well be a good reason for doing it.
We then had the picture that we often get of the right hon. Gentleman in his ivory tower surveying the housing problems of the nation. He told us that practically no authorities which have this problem would qualify for the £8. The resources test would not apply to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough said that Slough would find itself getting the £8. Slough will gain from this.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) also said that at the moment Slough was one of the most prosperous towns in the country. It therefore presumably would

need to draw less on the taxpayers of the nation.

Mr. MacColl: In order to make a contribution to the solution of the problem of overspill in the great congested areas, the right hon. Gentleman has encouraged local authorities to carry out his policy. He has invited them to undertake the responsibility of rehousing overspill population. Difficulties are created by people who come into these areas as welcome arrivals but who, in the normal course of events, create for the local authority in that area extremely difficult problems. We say that the right hon. Gentleman should accept financial responsibility for the results of his policy which local authorities are carrying out and in which they are co-operating.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 155. Noes 209.

Division No. 222.]
AYES
[6.37 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Greenwood, Anthony
Mort, D, L.


Albu, Austen
Grey, Charles
Moyle, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, Frederick


Awbery, Stan
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grimond, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Bence, Cyril
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.


Benson, Sir George
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John


Boardman, H.
Hannan, William
Parkin, B. T.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bowles, Frank
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boyden, James
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Popplewell, Ernest


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Holt, Arthur
Proctor, W. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Randall, Harry


Callaghan, James
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crosland, Anthony
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jenkins, Roy (Stetchford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Edward


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Deer, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Delargy, Hugh
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Diamond, John
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, Norman
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, Thomas


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Logan, David
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Stones, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacColl, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Evans, Albert
Mclnnes, James
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Finch, Harold
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Erie
McLeavy, Frank
Swingler, Stephen


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, A. C.
Symonds, J. B.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mapp, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mason, Roy
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Thorpe, Jeremy




Timmons, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Tomney, Frank
White, Mrs. Eirene
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Wade, Donald
Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Wainwright, Edwin
Willey, Frederick



Warbey, William
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watkins, Tudor
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Lawson and


Weitzman, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Charles A. Howell.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Godber, J. B.
Partridge, E.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Goodhew, Victor
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Allason, James
Gower, Raymond
Peel, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barlow, Sir John
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Barter, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pott, Percivall


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gurden, Harold
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho


Berkeley, Humphry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pym, Francis


Bidgood, John C.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Rees, Hugh


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Renton, David


Bishop, F. P.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Black, Sir Cyril
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bossom, Clive
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Roots, William


Box, Donald
Holland, Philip
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hornby, R. P.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Boyle, Sir Sdward
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Sharples, Richard


Brewis, John
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Shaw, M.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hughes-Young, Michael
Shepherd, William


Bryan, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Skeet, T. H. H.


Buck, Antony
Iremonger, T. L,
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bullard, Denys
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Smithers, Peter


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Jackson, Jonn
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
James, David
Speir, Rupert


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Stanley, Hon Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chataway, Christopher
Joseph, Sir Keith
Stodart, J. A.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Storey, Sir Samuel


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cleaver, Leonard
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cole, Norman
Langford-Holt, J.
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Cooke, Robert
Leavey, J. A.
Tapsell, Peter


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Corfield, F. V.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Litchfield, Capt. John
Temple, John M.


Critchley, Julian
Longbottom, Charles
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Longden, Gilbert
Thornton-Kemsley Sir Colin


Curran, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Turner, Colin


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Dance, James
McAdden, Stephen
Tweedsmuir, Lady


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
MacArthur, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Deedes, W. F.
McLaren, Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


de Ferranti, Basil
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley R.
Walder, David


du Cann, Edward
Maddan, Martin
Walker, Peter


Duncan, Sir James
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ward, Dame Irene


Duthie, Sir William
Marshall, Douglas
Whitelaw, William


Eden, John
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Mills, Stratton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Errington, Sir Eric
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wise, A. R.


Fell, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Finlay, Graeme
Nabarro, Gerald
Woodhouse, C. M.


Fisher, Nigel
Noble, Michael
Woodnutt, Mark


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Nugent, Sir Richard
Woollam, John


Forrest, Gaorge
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Worsley, Marcus


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Freeth, Denzil
Orr-Ewing, C Ian



Gammans, Lady
Page, John (Harrow, West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gardner, Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Mr. G. Campbell.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(SUBSIDIES FOR FLATS, EXPENSIVE SITES AND AGRICULTURAL DWELLINGS.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 6, line 35. after "shall" to insert:
subject to subsection (2) of this section.

The Chairman: I suggest that this Amendment goes with the next one, in page 6, line 44, at end insert:
(2) In the case of any approved dwelling where the Minister is satisfied that the cost of building flats is exceptionally high by comparison with the average costs of similar building in England and Wales and that by reason of the shortage of available land or the number of people requiring accommodation in the neighbourhood of that dwelling it is desirable that it should be included in a block of flats of four or more storeys, the Minister may increase the amount payable under the foregoing subsection by one half.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir Gordon. It will be convenient to take the two together. They deal not so much with the total amount of subsidy, but with what the gap in subsidy should be for local authorities who solve their problems by building low and for those who solve their problems by building high. At least, that is correct if one puts it in a rough, general form.
I propose, therefore, to direct my argument specifically to the point which the Minister raised in Committee. He said that he did not dispute that building costs had gone up in the last four or five years—indeed, he could not dispute that—but he contended that the gap in cost as between providing accommodation by building high and providing it by building low had not widened and, therefore, we ought not to provide in the Bill for a higher rate of special subsidy for building high than was provided in previous legislation. That is the point to which we have to address ourselves.
Looking through the Reports of the debates in Committee, I find that the Minister set before us the general proposition that the gap between the cost of building low and the cost of building high had not widened, but, interestingly enough, he produced no definite figures to support that contention. His adventure into figures on the matter was to say that the average cost in England and Wales, apart from the London County Council, of building flats of 12 or more storeys was £2,320. He was taking, therefore, for the basis of his argument,

very tall blocks of flats of 12 or 15 storeys for which he said the cost was £2,320.
The Minister then went on to argue that on such a block the capitalised value of the high building subsidy was £660. That left a gap of £1,660. To establish his argument, the Minister had to prove, presumably, that one could not build low for as little as £1,660. All he said on that point was that he doubted very much whether local authorities could build a three-storey block at under £1,660. From the way that the Minister led up to the argument, we had all expected that he would produce specific figures of the cost of building high and of building low. The only authenticated figure that the right hon. Gentleman gave us was the average cost over England and Wales, excluding London, of a 12-or 15-storey block of flats. Any comparative figures to set against that were merely the Minister's conjecture.
Suppose we ignore the fact that the Minister did not fully establish his case in Committee. Let us suppose that he had gone as far as to show that generally speaking, over the country as a whole, the gap between the cost of building high and the cost of building low had not widened. That is only half true, but let us suppose that the Minister proved wholly that as a general rule the gap had not widened. It still remains true that although it may not have widened taking an average of the country as a whole, it has certainly widened in certain areas. That is why we now propose an Amendment to increase the value of the high building subsidy not over the country as a whole, but in those areas where the cost of building high has increased more than the average. It would be difficult for the Minister to maintain that that was not a reasonable thing to do.
On that point, some interesting figures were provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). He took the figures for Birmingham for blocks of about six storeys in height. In 1956, the cost of building low in Birmingham was £1,450 and of building high, in six-storey blocks or thereabouts, £1,700. That is a gap of £250. Roughly, it cost about 17 per cent. more to build high than to build low in Birmingham in 1956. The corresponding Birmingham figures in 1960


were £1,922 for building low and £2,355 for building high, a gap of £433, or not far short of 25 per cent.
There is no doubt, therefore, that in Birmingham the gap between the cost of building high and building low has increased. Yet this Bill, which is supposed to consider particularly the special needs of particular local authorities, makes no provision for an authority in that position. Surely this is a very simple proposition for the Minister to grasp. He has argued that the one thing that could justify an increase of the figures—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): Will the hon. Gentleman explain two things? Are the figures which he is giving for three-bedroomed dwellings in both cases, and do they exclude the cost of land in both cases? Let us be sure that we shall be discussing the same thing.

Mr. Stewart: They exclude the cost of land and they are the same type of two-bedroomed dwellings throughout. This is a very simple proposition. The Minister argues that the only ground for increasing the subsidy under this Clause would be if the gap between the cost of building high and building low had widened. If we accept his proposition that it has not widened as a general rule, it can still be demonstrated that it has widened in certain areas, and there is surely a very strong case for amending the Clause to make it permissive, but not mandatory, for the Minister to increase the extra subsidy for building high in areas where the cost of doing so had increased more than the average.
I hope not to overburden the argument with figures, but I think that we can pursue a little further the figures given by the Minister. He gave the figure of £2,320 as the average cost of building to a height of 12 to 15 storeys. He argued that the building high subsidy provided about £600 of that capital cost. We find that in Birmingham, for a block of flats of that height, the cost is not about £2,300 but about £2,600. I am told that in the Borough of Paddington It is similar. I think that in other cities, or parts of great cities, we should find that the cost is similar, that is to say a figure about £300 higher than the figure

quoted by the Minister as the average for the country as a whole.
In those areas, it would surely be reasonable that the value of the building high subsidy should not be about £600 but £600 plus an additional £300, plus, in fact, 50 per cent. It was that kind of consideration that led us to suppose, in the Amendment that we are now putting before the Committee, that it should be possible for the Minister to increase the rates of subsidy under this Clause by 50 per cent.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to notice how carefully and moderately this proposed new subsection is drafted. It is to apply only in areas where the gap between the cost of building high and building low is exceptional. It is further to apply only in areas which can show that there is no other way of dealing adequately with their housing problem than to build high, and the Minister has to be the judge whether these two tests have been satisfied.
It cannot be suggested that by this now subsection we propose that the Minister should be let in for a large unreckonable liability, or that money should be lavished on authorities which have no particular need of it. We are offering the Minister the chance of putting into the Bill the power to prevent injustice in certain parts of the country where there is a need to build high and there is the special difficulty of cost in doing so. I think that he will find it very difficult, in reason or in justice, to resist the Amendment.

Mrs. Eirene White: I wish very briefly to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) with his customary thoroughness and lucidity. I do so partly because I regard it as a paving Amendment to my own Amendment, which is next on the Amendment Paper. While my Amendment has nothing to do directly with finance, it would be difficult to operate it satisfactorily unless sufficient finance were provided for those authorities which are obliged to build high. Therefore, I think that the Minister should pay attention to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend.
The Government, of course, recognise, and have done previously, that the expense of building high blocks is considerable, and they make some provision


for it. All that is suggested in this very reasonable Amendment is that in some cases these expenses are markedly higher than in others, and that in a Bill of this kind there should be flexibility for the Minister, in suitable circumstances, to make an additional payment, which will be necessary if the kind of flats to be put up are to be tolerable dwellings. Unless this extra financial provision is forthcoming when required, the kind of amenities which some of us are most concerned about for these fiats, and the lack of which makes flats intolerably uncivilised, will not be provided for financial reasons.
It seems to me that the terms of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, as he pointed out, leave the Minister a very wide range of discretion. He is not bound to dole out money to all and sundry on some rigid formula. He is able, in the terms of the Amendment, to fit the subsidy very largely to suit the circumstances of an authority. An authority cannot make claim to the subsidy unless it can show that its costs are higher than average, nor can it make claim for additional consideration unless it can show that there is real need for building high. One does not want to get into the situation where one authority says, "I must go higher than my neighbour and have a finer sky-scraper than theirs." It would not, and we would not wish in the least to encourage building high just for the sake of building high.
7.0 p.m.
On the other hand, when it is necessary to build high it is most essential that we should be sure that the authorities concerned have the resources not merely to build high but to build really properly designed, properly equipped, properly constructed dwellings. If they do not have those resources it will be just as easy to have shoddy, shabby buildings in high blocks as it is to have them in houses of one or two storeys.
Therefore, I earnestly hope that the Minister will accept what seems to me to be a very reasonable and necessary Amendment.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I have very much sympathy with this Amendment. Often when I have raised with the Minister this question of height and

density of building he has been very much in sympathy with me, and I am sure that he appreciates, as we London Members do, that the only possibility of rehousing all those people who have to be rehoused and at the same time providing adequate play space and facilities is by building high. I cannot see how my right hon. Friend can do anything less than accept the Amendment which, as has already been said from the benches opposite, would give him flexibility which he could use so wisely if he thought it necessary to use it to help building high.
One does not have to be an architect to know that to build high, in some cases anyway, requires a very great deal of expenditure. I think that it would not be unreasonable if the Minister were to have power to help such building in those specific instances where he is satisfied that it is necessary to build high in the interests not only of building but of providing adequate play space and facilities. It would be just as well if he were armed with sufficient financial powers to give the local authority just that type of financial encouragement which would induce it to build to the right height to satisfy the needs of the locality.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will think very carefully about this Amendment. It would give him a great advantage in flexibility in encouraging that type of building which we want to see, certainly in and around Central London.

Mr. A. Evans: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is now well aware, having been told so from both sides of the Committee, that this Amendment really commits him to nothing definite. It merely gives him power to grant additional subsidy where the circumstances of a locality require that that additional subsidy should be paid for this type of building. I hope that the Minister will consider the Amendment sympathetically. He need not fear it, because he will not be pledging himself to spend any money a t all; but he will be armed with power to give help where help is required.
I believe that the Minister is thinking about this matter even now. I am sure


that he is not here with a closed mind, because in Committee he said:
If hon. Members wish to submit any further evidence following this debate, and I invite local authorities and local authority associations to do likewise, I will willingly look at it, because I am anxious to get this matter right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 4th May, 1961; c. 483.]
So we may hope that the Minister has not already decided against the Amendment but has come to the Committee with an open mind and prepared to consider the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart).
The Minister rejected an Amendment moved in Committee to increase the subsidy on high buildings because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham said, he produced figures which purported to indicate that the cost of building high was not much greater, if any greater, than the cost of building low. He gave us figures based upon the whole of England and Wales—I think, from official sources; authentic figures which could be relied upon—but apart from the London County Council. He said that the average building cost of building twelve storeys and over in 1960 was £2,300. That was the average cost of building flats over twelve storeys in the whole of England and Wales but not including the area of the London County Council.
To prove the need for my hon. Friend's Amendment I should like to tell the Committee the cost in London. The cost of building high in London—and more and more of these high buildings will have to be built to solve the admittedly acute housing problem in the Metropolitan area—of building flats in twelve storeys, runs out at £1,000 a room. These figures have been given to me today by an official of the London County Council and they can be accepted as correct. The cost is £1,000 a room in buildings over twelve storeys in London as against the Minister's average figure of £2,300 a flat, in the country as a whole.
Therefore it is quite clear that the cost in some areas, certainly in London, is very much above the average. It seems clear on the face of those figures that there is an undoubted case for an additional subsidy in those areas

which can satisfy the Minister that their costs are above average. Of course, the local authority concerned must satisfy the Minister that that is so before he would invoke the Amendment which we hope will be made to the Clause.
I would round those figures off by saying that £3,000 for a three-roomed dwelling in the London area does not include the cost of land. The cost of land is really astounding. This is the Minister's responsibility. It is a matter he must be concerned about, although it is not immediately relevant to this Amendment. The cost of land for high buildings in the London area runs out an the average at between £800 and £1,200 per dwelling, which is pretty astounding. So the cost of building a three-roomed flat, at £3,000 plus the cost of the land at an average of £1,000, is a very high cost.
These are average figures. There are, of course, variations. Some sites are more expensive than others, and it is more profitable to build upon a small site than upon a large site, but I think these figures prove indisputably that the cost of building high—and, of course, building high is unavoidable in town centres—is in some areas very much higher than it is in others.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister, remembering the promise he gave us in Committee, that he would be open to consider other evidence, will on this occasion consider this Amendment sympathetically and, if he cannot accept every word of it, will implement in another place the purport of it.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Every hon. Member present realises that it costs much more to build high flats than to build houses, but what we are complaining about is that the increase in costs is higher than the Minister concedes and in exceptional cases is very much higher. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) has quoted some remarkable figures for the London area.

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that the hon. Member will not waste energy controverting something my right hon. Friend has not said. My right hon. Friend never denied that the cost of building high is considerably more than the cost of building low. What he has been


talking about is the gap and he has asserted that the gap is not increasing.

Mr. Allaun: Precisely, and I am saying that it is greater than the Minister concedes. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West quoted figures for London where costs are higher because of the condition of the building industry. In certain areas there are higher costs for geographical reasons.
I should like to quote a case which I know the Minister has encountered. It is the case of building in North Salford where, because there is absolutely no building land, 11-storey blocks of 700 flats had to be built on land which was previously subject to flooding to a depth of three feet. This meant digging foundations to the great depth of 45 feet and because of the danger of flooding recurring it was impossible to build housing accommodation on the ground floor.
The result was that a great deal of space was wasted for housing purposes and therefore the cost of the flats was increased. There was also the need to build playgrounds for the children. All these things added to the cost, and even after taking into account the existing subsidy a very high rent had to be charged to people who were mostly on low wages. They were the people who had previously lived in Hankey Park, described in Walter Greenwood's play "Love on the Dole".
In the case of another block of flats in Salford, slum clearance was involved and there was all the preliminary expense of clearing the old buildings away. The figures which I shall mention to the Committee had all been to competitive tender and therefore there was no question of extravagance. These are figures of actual competititive costs. The cost of two-bedroomed flats in a 15-storey block was £3,254 or, by the time interest was paid at 6 per cent. for sixty years, £12,062. Since then there have been two further increases in loan interest charges. Even with the subsidy under this Bill of £65 15s. per flat, the rent will work out at £3 ls. per week plus rates, which will bring the figure up to £3 10s. 2d.
There may be hon. Members present who do not think that is a great deal of

money. I do, because I would remind the Committee that a week ago the engineering unions decided to put in a claim for wage increases. Their basic rate is £8 4s. 2d., or £9 15s. 0d for a skilled man and there are many men on the basic rate. On wages like that, £3 10s. 2d. is an impossible figure for rent.
Some cities will receive the lower subsidy of £8 per dwelling per year. This means that whilst they will receive a higher subsidy for the higher storeys, they will receive a lower subsidy for the ground floor. I can anticipate the Minister's reply, because in Committee, in rejecting a somewhat similar Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I feel that the subsidies for tall blocks of flats should be such as to enable local authorities to opt for them if they need them, but "—
and there is always a "but"—
—I do not know whether I will carry everybody with me in this—I do not think that we should give local authorities an extra encouragement or bribe to build high flats rather than to build houses".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 4th May, 1961; c. 479.]

Mr. A. Evans: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Amendment before us is somewhat different from the one the Minister rejected in Committee, and we hope that he will accept this one.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Allaun: I accept that, but nevertheless I anticipated that the Minister would use the same argument and would say that if he accepted the Amendment it would be an encouragement or a bribe to local authorities to build high flats.
The Minister knows that the local authorities are not building high flats from choice but from necessity. Nearly all our constituents would greatly prefer to live in houses. Therefore, as the Bill stands, they will live in less desirable homes than they want and will pay far more for them. I believe that the Minister should have given way on the broader question, but I certainly think that in the exceptional cases at least and on this limited point he should see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: The Minister has been quoted as asking for further evidence on this subject before he makes up his mind. I hope that he has been seeking it or will seek it in wider fields than purely building


estimates and that he will accept that most of the evidence is not yet available because we have not had sufficient experience of this way of life. This is why I want to speak somewhat on the lines of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) when she spoke of this Amendment as a paving Amendment to the next one.
I want to urge flexibility and open-mindedness on the part of the Minister so that he can reserve to himself powers to make changes where he thinks desirable, because this matter surely should not be decided on building costs alone. There is a difference between a tall block of flats in Putney overlooking Richmond Park, with all the amenities that are immediately available, and a similar block of flats perched on the edge of the railway in Paddington with none of those amenities. Surely social costs must be considered.
I have an unhappy recollection, as other hon. Members must have, of the incidents in Notting Hill a few years ago when a handful of young men got into serious trouble. The majority of them did not come from Paddington or Kensington but some of them came from a large block of flats in an accepted council estate. We do not yet know the causes of certain disturbing social consequences, but this way of life has not yet been going on long enough for us to test it. We have not yet seen a generation grow up in these large blocks of flats.
I have been told that Paddington is the most densely populated area in London. Whether that is true or not, I know that in one of the most crowded parts of my constituency there is an entrance to what is now a milk depot and above it there is the name of the gentleman who lived there and who within the memory of those living in the area used to draw milk from cows which grazed in green fields immediately across the road. Thus do things change.
If one looks at the reports from people who count up the chance of rehousing people in London, one can see that there is no hope of it within what an insurance company would call the expectation of life of the present Minister, but the present Minister will probably live to see people living, for a short time at any

rate, on the moon. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) talked about the gap. This is not a gap narrowing or widening. It is a chasm, a leap into a new kind of life of which humanity has practically no experience. All sorts of scientific experiments are being made to find out how one can survive in outer space. Where are the careful, methodical studies being made to find how people can live seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, raising a family on the fourteenth floor of a block of flats? The only evidence we have had up to now is the piece of hard and important work which has been done under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East, which is a most valuable document, and an indication of the similar sort of work and investigation which ought to be done over a wide field.
I expect that the Minister agrees and appreciates that there is this danger that the living space of the working people is being eroded more and more by change of user, and that there will be a temptation to concentrate on higher and higher blocks in smaller and smaller areas for the people who have to do the humbler work in the great cities. It is one of the most serious threats, in many aspects, to our way of life and civilisation. It involves a reassessment of the sort of values which may have to be preached and taught in the cities.
This is why, on this Amendment, I plead for the maximum flexibility to be given to the Minister, so that he can use his judgment in encouraging some authorities to spend more money in putting in even experimental amenities, which they could never, in the ordinary way, expect to get away with in a housing project, so as to cope with some of the problems which seem to be developing for the future. These problems will develop if we do not pay attention now to the danger of creating a new kind of city life, a new kind of slum and a new helotry who are expected to do the work of the cities, and who we do not yet know will show the necessary resilience to survive these conditions.

Dr. Glyn: Would the hon. Member agree that, whatever the effects of building high flats and dwellings are, it is, in fact, the only possible long-term solution for the housing of the people in London and the great cities?

Mr. Parkin: Indeed, yes, and only the anxious looks of my hon. Friends who want to make speeches have deterred me from going on. It is, of course, but what I want to avoid is the situation where we have only a few limited sites where we shall be forced into building some gigantic silo, some vertical battery house for the workers, instead of the only proper comprehensive development, with even mixed user. Why, the Queen of Babylon did better. [Interruption.] Yes, indeed, with roof gardens. Indeed, the ancient civilisations did better than we are doing. The hon. Gentleman should not provoke me any further than that, because the Parliamentary Secretary is itching to get up and say that he has thought of the same thing, too.

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that all of us will live long enough to see the continuance of the present trend of local authorities vying with each other in the standards of amenities which they can provide in the high blocks of flats which they build. Of course, my right hon. Friend wants to help those local authorities which want to build high to do so, and in as civilised and humane a way as possible. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has an Amendment on a particular point that interests her, but I think that hon. Members will be glad to know that my right hon. Friend has hopes of receiving fairly soon the report of the Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee on the standards of housing, including flats, and no doubt that report will have a good deal to say about this subject of amenities.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) was quite right in saying that we have had as yet fairly limited experience of the cost of design and amenities in high blocks of flats, but the numbers are growing, and I think that we have enough evidence from them to make at least a provisional conclusion for the moment. I hope that the Committee will not expect my right hon. Friend to take into account the costs of individual blocks of flats, because it is the average which he must take into account, and it is the changes in the average which are the most relevant. Individual blocks of flats may cost more or less according to the design and according to the cost of construction, but

the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) spoke as if the only extravagance might be in building costs, and disposed of it by saying that in a particular case he mentioned there were competitive tenders. I am sure that he will realise that there can also be extravagance in design, and that, indeed, the design can generally account for more extravagance even than the building.
I must also explain to the Committee that my right hon. Friend's statistics, which do not go back all that far, go back sufficiently to be useful, and that in their average they exclude the L.C.C. area. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) was quite right in saying that the cost of building in London is, on the whole, higher than in other parts of the country, but so also, on average, is the income available in London. I should also like to exclude from this discussion any uncertainty which might be caused by those hon. Members who included in their figures the cost of the land. Several hon. Members have been scrupulous to exclude the cost of the land, and, as the Committee is aware, land is considered separately when it comes to a subsidy, and there is an expensive site subsidy which takes into account, not only the cost of the land, but the cost of preparing it if there are special foundations. This has to be considered quite separately and taken into account in addition to any high building subsidy which the project may deserve.
The example quoted by the hon. Member for Salford, East of a two-bedroomed flat costing £3,254 was one where the cost included the land. I understand that in that particular case the building cost was £2,400 per flat, and no doubt the project received the expensive site subsidy in addition to the high building subsidy. All hon. Members have recognised that this subsidy is meant to meet part of the cost of the gap between building high and building low, and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) challenged me to show that this gap is not widening. He quite correctly quoted my right hon. Friend saying during the Committee stage that the average cost outside London in 1960 of flats of twelve storeys and higher was £2,320.
The Committee may like to have some more figures which I do not think have


been given on the trend in costs. I have here figures of the average costs, again outside London and again limited to England and Wales, of six to eight storey blocks of flats, of nine to eleven storeys and of twelve storeys and above. I will give the figures if any hon. Member is interested, but I think that the movement between 1958 and 1960 will be what the Committee is mostly interested in.
In the case of six to eight storeys, the average cost per flat increased during those two years by £84. Blocks of six to eight storeys is the height which is the least economic when building high, because we have all the extra burden of expensive foundations and lifts, without taking full advantage of this extra cost that comes only when we build really high. My right hon. Friend has already told the Committee that that is the level which some local authorities may have to use, but that sort of height offers the lowest reward for building high.
In the group of from nine to eleven storeys, between 1958 and 1960, the cost per flat fell by £28, but looking back at the flats built during those two years, we find that they received a higher level of subsidy, amounting to something like £27 10s. per flat per storey increase in height, and yet the actual cost per dwelling declined by £28. If we go higher still, to twelve storeys and above—

Mr. MacColl: With regard to the figure of £27 10s. did the hon. Gentleman refer to the capitalised subsidy or to the annual subsidy? The figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave was £27 capitalised per flat per storey.

7.30 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg the Committee's pardon. Of course £27 capitalised subsidy per flat per storey.
In the case of twelve storeys and above, the cost per dwelling increased by £36. I remind the Committee of what the hon. Member for Paddington, North said. We are still dealing with a relatively small number of twelve-plus storey blocks of flats. As an ex-member of the constructional industry, I hope that as both the design and site elements of the constructional industry improve their techniques and as greater numbers of blocks of flats can be analysed, the trend will continue downwards. However, at the moment for the relatively small

number of 12-storey and upwards blocks of flats analysed in the period 1958–60, blocks no doubt initiated before 1958, there was an increase of £36 per dwelling. As the Committee is aware, the capitalised subsidy is £27.
It is beyond doubt that, on average, all over the country the subsidy for high building is bearing an increasing share of the diminishing gap between the cost of building low and the cost of building high. That is extremely valuable, because my right hon. Friend is most anxious that these flats shall incorporate decent living amenities, proper insulation, proper play space and all the sort of amenity which the best design already provides—probably at no higher price, because there are architects who can solve design, cost and functional problems simultaneously and even produce higher quantity and quality of amenities at a lower price than other buildings produced without those amenities.
In a persuasive speech, the hon. Member for Fulham suggested that the Amendment would do nothing more than give my right hon. Friend a discretion, a power, to increase the subsidy should it be necessary. I hope that the Committee is now persuaded that, if anything, the gap is decreasing and that the existing subsidy therefore covers a larger proportion of that gap. If the Amendment were to be accepted—and my right hon. Friend cannot advise the Committee to acceptit—it would only encourage relatively poor or slack design. In architecture there are always new techniques which those architects who are in the van of progress use in order to provide better dwellings at cheaper cost. The last thing my right hon. Friend would want to do would be to say to local authorities that it did not matter and that they need not bother about good design and that, if a building cost a little more, he had a reserve power to increase the subsidy.
The subsidy covers a substantial part of the gap and local authorities should be encouraged to seek good design so as to minimise the cost and maximise amenities, as the most advanced local authorities and advanced architects are already doing. I repeat that the trends are in favour of lower costs for higher building, the trends both of design and


techniques which architects and engineers can use, and the trends which builders and civil engineers can use on the site.
We all know that the management revolution has struck the building industry, particularly the firms which concentrate on higher buildings. We all know that the day is long past when the only tower cranes were to be found on the Continent of Europe. Most sites going to high building in this country now have tower cranes and use all sorts of other advanced management techniques as well. For all those reasons the Committee should be satisfied—

Mr. Parkin: The Parliamentary Secretary appears to be suggesting that the Minister will not have the strength of will or the expert advice available to detect whether the increased cost is due to bad design or to a bad architect. Be that as it may, will he try to meet my point—that the Minister should be able to use his judgment to grant a subsidy in cases where more amenities were necessary to a block of flats? I thought I gave a fairly simple example of a tall block of flats on the edge of Richmond Park and on the edge of the railway station. Will he deal with that?

Sir K. Joseph: I thought that I had explained to the Committee that even now different blocks of flats contained different quantities and qualities of architecture for much the same average price, and that one architect and one authority and one civil engineer got more out of the same amount of money than did others. It is not good enough to say that my right hon. Friend would have the advice and will power only to use a discretionary subsidy where that was thoroughly justified and where there was no bad design. What my right hon. Friend must seek to do from the very moment when a local authority decides on what architect and civil engineer it will employ, is to encourage the best combination of cost, design—that is æsthetic design—and function. Already in the existing local authority block of flats we can see a great range in quality and price and my right hon. Friend must obviously seek to encourage the optimum in all those aspects.
For all those reasons, my right hon. Friend cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: When the Parliamentary Secretary achieves that deserved promotion to Ministerial rank to which all his friends are confidently looking forward, it will be appropriate for him to go to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance—were that Department not at present adequately filled—because that argument will commend itself to Conservatives if applied to pensions. The argument would then be that if pensions were cut down old people would be encouraged to be better housewives; that if the amount of money which they had to spend were reduced, they would learn how to spread their money more economically and how to use cheaper cuts of meat and how to live on root vegetables instead of milk and eggs.
That argument was precisely the argument which the hon. Gentleman used about architecture, because what he was saying was that if the subsidy given in respect of flats was cut the architect would be driven by economy to produce better flats. That is manifest nonsense. What would happen would be that amenities would be cut down. I do not want to anticipate a later discussion on that kind of consideration, but it is clear that if the subsidy is cut we will get not better design but shoddier work and more jerry building.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not appreciated what the Amendment is about. He directed his attention to averages and he compared the average costs of houses with the average costs of flats and talked of average gaps. The whole point of our Amendment is to get away from averages and to deal with particular cases.
This matter arose from an argument used by the right hon. Gentleman in Standing Committee when we were dealing with a proposal to increase the subsidy on flats. Our Amendment then had the vocal support, although not the voting support—I mention that for the benefit of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn)—of a large number of influential and knowledgeable supporters of the Government. I think that we got more support on that Amendment than on any other.
Dealing with a criticism being made from both sides of the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said that the danger was that if there were too generous a subsidy for flats it would encourage local authorities to build flats rather than houses in order to save money, with the result that in areas where flats were not necessary local authorities would propose to build flats because the Treasury would give them a greater subsidy and they would thus save money. There were good answers to it, but I will not waste the time of the Committee giving them because we accepted that argument.
We went on to look at the figures he quoted. With engaging frankness the hon. Gentleman admitted that the figures he quoted about the cost of flats excluded the area where one has to build mainly flats, because London has been excluded. In other words, one has an average for England and Wales which is weighted by all the areas in which it is not necessary to build flats, but which excludes the areas of London where flats must be built because one cannot build anything else. As a result one guts a figure of £2,320 as the average for the country.
The Minister went on to make a moving plea, saying, "I want assistance. I am not satisfied that we have the answer. I want to know the facts. I would welcome any help from the Committee, from local authority associations, or from anyone else". My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) immediately produced some figures for Birmingham. Those figures have not been challenged. They were quoted again today by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). They showed that not only was it more expensive to build flats in Birmingham, but that the gap was bigger than the average and that it was widening still more. My hon. Friend showed that between 1956 and 1960 the gap in Birmingham had widened from £250 to £433.
These figures are confirmed in every large town in the country. We have had figures for Salford. My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) quoted the figures for his area. My hon. Friend the Member for

Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) quoted the figures for the London County Council. All the evidence indicates that what we suspected is correct, that the cost of building flats is much higher in large built-up areas where they have to be built than in the areas where one has some discretion.
Taking the right hon. Gentleman at his word, the Amendment says that in those areas where flats are vitally necessary the Minister should have a discretion to increase the subsidy by as much as a half to meet the extra cost of building those flats. That is the point of the Amendment, and it is based on the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman. What are we to do? We pore over his speeches. We read the inspired words of the right hon. Gentleman, we translate them into an Amendment, and we are then spurned by the Parliamentary Secretary who will not listen to us. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants information. We have supplied him with that information. I do not know why he cannot get the information from his own sources. Why does he not take steps to discover the facts of the situation?
This is a simple calculation. Flats cost more to build than houses, and flats cost more to build in large towns than in provincial areas. Therefore, to meet the needs—not the academic theoretical needs—of areas where flats must be built, we ought, on the right hon. Gentleman's own hypothesis, to pay a subsidy which represents the capitalised value at 60 years of the difference between those two costs.
7.45 p.m.
It is a simple figure. The figure quoted in the Bill is not the full cost of the difference in London, in Salford, in Birmingham, or in any large town. It is the difference calculated for the average of the country, which is a meaningless figure because it is so heavily weighted with those areas where the building of flats is not necessary. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not take this discretion? If he finds that our arguments are correct, that a larger subsidy is needed to bridge this gap, why will he not take power to bridge that gap? That is all we are asking. We are not asking for an increased subsidy based on some wild and theoretical argument. We have


given the calculations upon which the figure is based, and we say that the Minister should take the power and the discretion to provide a subsidy of that amount if it is found to be necessary.
What more can an Opposition do to be reasonable, to be helpful, to be arithmetically accurate, and to put before the Committee all the factors in the situation? What more can we do to meet the Government? Despite our efforts, they are being as obstinate as they have been during the months when we have been discussing the Bill. They are ignoring the facts. They are refusing to provide this flexibility—that was the word used by the hon. Member for Clapham. The hon. Gentleman is right. We need flexibility to meet the varying problems

in the difficult areas. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not listen to the views put forward from both sides of the Committee both upstairs and here and accept the Amendment?

Mr. Frank Allaun: I want to keep the record straight. When I referred earlier to two-bedroomed flats costing £2,354, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there was a large item in that for land cost. I want to make it clear that the figure of £3 10s. 2d. for rent and rates was fixed after receiving a Government subsidy.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 153, Noes 200.

Division No. 223.]
AYES
[7.47 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Prentice, R. E.


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Probert, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, Stan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Randall, Harry


Bence, Cyril
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Holman, Percy
Redhead, E. C.


Boardman, H.
Holt, Arthur
Rhodes, H.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N,)


Bowies, Frank
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ross, William


Boyden, James
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Short, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Skeffington, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, James
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Kelley, Richard
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Steele, Thomas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Crosland, Anthony
King, Dr. Horace
Stones, William


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lawson, George
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sylvester, George


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur (west Ham, N.)
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, David
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy, Hugh
MacColl, James
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Diamond, John
Mclnnes, James
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dodds, Norman
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Driberg, Tom
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Timmons, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Wade, Donald


Evans, Albert
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wainwright, Edwin


Finch, Harold
Mason, Roy
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R.
Watkins, Tudor


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Moody, A. S.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Whitlock, William


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mulley, Frederick
Willey, Frederick


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Neal, Harold
Williams, Li. (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Greenwood, Anthony
Padley, W. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, Charles
Parker, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Parkin, B. T.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Grimond, J.
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Popplewell, Ernest
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. McCann.




NOES


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gardner, Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Arbuthnot, John
Goodhew, Victor
Partridge, E.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gower, Raymond
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barlow, Sir John
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Barter, John
Green, Alan
Pott, Percivall


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gresham Cooke, R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bell, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Prior, J. M. L.


Berkeley, Humphry
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bidgood, John C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pym, Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Ramsden, James


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Rees, Hugh


Box, Donald
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Renton, David


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Robinson, Sir Roland(Blackpool, S.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Robson Brown, Sir William


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bryan, Paul
Hocking, Philip N.
Roots, William


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip
Sharples, Richard


Bullard, Denys
Hornby, R. P.
Shepherd, William


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Burden, F. A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Smithers, Peter


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Speir, Rupert


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stanley, Hon Richard


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jackson, John
Stevens, Geoffrey


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
James, David
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Stodart, J. A.


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Tapsell, Peter


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cole, Norman
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Langford-Holt, J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leavey, J. A.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Corfield, F. V.
Leburn, Gilmour
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Curran, Charles
Lilley, F. J. P.
Turner, Colin


Currie, G. B. H.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Litchfield, Capt. John
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Dance, James
Longbottom, Charles
Vickers, Miss Joan


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Loveys, Walter H.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Deedes, W. F.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


de Ferranti, Basil
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McAdden, Stephen
Walder, David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
MacArthur, Ian
Walker, Peter


du Cann, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Duncan, Sir James
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Whitelaw, William


Duthie, Sir William
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Eden, John
McMaster, Stanley R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wise, A. R.


Emery, Peter
Marshall, Douglas
Woodhouse, C. M.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Mawby, Ray
Woodnutt, Mark


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Woollam, John


Fell, Anthony
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Worsley, Marcus


Fisher, Nigel
More, jasper (Ludlow)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Nabarro, Gerald



Forrest, George
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Peel and Mr. Noble.


Freeth, Denzil
Page, John (Harrow, West)

Mrs. White: I beg to move, in page 6, line 44, at the end to insert:
(2) In the case of flats for which subsidy is paid as provided in the foregoing subsection, the Minister shall by regulation require the authority to provide adequate play space for children, including those of pre-school age, unless he is satisfied that adequate play facilities are available in a park or other public round adjacent to the flats.

We have already had a brief introduction to this Amendment in our discussion upon flats. I wish to draw attention to one aspect of the problem, namely, the effect of the conditions upon children, and especially small children. I do not presume to be in any sense an expert on housing or housing policy, and I therefore hesitate to intervene on the


complicated questions of subsidies and so forth. But I am very much concerned about education and the welfare of children, and it is from that point of view that I approach the question.
I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman, in his Ministerial capacity, has no direct responsibility for child welfare; that is a matter for the Ministers of Education and Health, according to the age of the child. But, equally, he has no direct responsibility for the welfare of old people, but since he is responsible for housing he has a certain extremely important responsibility for those categories of the population, in that he has to provide the right conditions in which they are to live.
I took a very keen interest in the question of small children living in high flats when I was approached 12 months ago by representatives of the health visitors. As the Committee knows, they are people who go into homes where there are children of less than five years of age. We were discussing nursery schools—which are not directly relevant to this debate—and the health visitors said, "Mrs. White, we understand that the Minister of Education has put an absolute ban on new nursery schools, except in replacing existing ones. If we are not going to have more nursery schools we are extremely worried about the social provisions which are to be made for young children."
8.0 p.m.
I asked them what evidence they had of difficulties, and they replied that the difficulties were particularly in the high blocks of flats which are now being built, especially in London, without adequate provision for play. I inquired what further evidence they could give me of the need for these facilities, and they replied, "We are not ourselves in a position to give more than our very strong opinions."
Following that, with the generous assistance of the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust, I was able, with a small committee, assisted by a very skilled investigator, Mrs. Joan Maizels, to make some inquiries into the matter, and we published a report, which I will arrange to make available to hon. Members if they have not seen it. It was called Two to Five in High Flats". It is

issued by the Housing Centre which has been good enough to distribute it for us, although it has no direct responsibility for the report.
If we have family life in these very high blocks of flats, then we have responsibility for seeing that the amenities provided are adequate. A great deal of attention has been paid in recent years, quite rightly, to the needs of the elderly, but nothing like sufficient attention has been paid to the needs of children. It has not been for lack of good advice.
The Minister himself, before he joined the Government, was chairman of a sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which produced a most interesting Report called "Living in Flats". It was published in 1952. There was admirable sentiment in that Report on this very matter of the welfare of children and special provision for play space. The Report said:
The provision of one or more playgrounds must be a first call on the available space around flats because it is on children that the inevitable restrictions of flat life press most readily.
That is something with which I am sure we are all in complete agreement. The Report went on to say:
There is much evidence from tenants themselves that the need most keenly felt by mothers in blocks of flats is 'somewhere safe for children to play'.
In a later Report from the Ministry, published in 1958, there was the following sentence:
The important thing is to recognise that the beneficial social effects of good housing conditions can be largely cancelled out if there is nowhere immediately near their homes where children find it enjoyable to play.
With all that, I am sure that every member of the Committee, and the Minister, is in full agreement. But despite all the good advice—and I could quote many other authorities who have given it in the last few years—and despite all the sentiments expressed by the Minister and his Department, this investigation of ours in London shows that the action which has followed has been quite inadequate.
I do not believe that we shall have satisfactory provision for children unless the Minister himself is prepared to intervene, and that is the point of the Amendment. It asks that
… the Minister shall … require the authority …


which receives a subsidy for the higher blocks of flats
… to provide adequate play space for children, including those of pre-school age, unless he is satisfied that adequate play facilities are available in a park or other public ground adjacent to the flats.
The right hon. Gentleman may criticise the wording of the Amendment. I did not have the benefit of assistance by the Parliamentary draftsman or even by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) who is so kind to us on these occasions. But if criticism of the wording is all that the Minister has, I will not quarrel with him, but I beg him to accept the principle that he has some responsibility in this matter.
If he encourages local authorities to build these high flats, he must make sure that the principles enunciated in various official reports are carried out in concrete fashion. I recognise that his responsibility is only to provide the surroundings in which play activities and so on can take place, but unless the physical provision is made—preferably at the start, when it will be cheaper anyway, and not by compromise later on—it will be very difficult to go further and to provide the kind of play leadership and other facilities that may be desired.
Where there are very small children, especially of pre-school age, it is vital that this provision should be made in the immediate neighbourhood of the flats. Older children may go further a field, but the small child needs to play very close to his own home. The investigation which we carried out showed conclusively that the smaller children in particular simply do not have, at present, adequate play facilities. For a small child especially, play is not just a matter of amusement, as it may be for an older person. It is an essential part of the social and mental development of the child. It would not be appropriate in this debate to go into the psychology and educational principle behind this, but I am sure that the Committee will accept that, for the personal development of a small child, adequate play is absolutely vital.
Recently, the Home Office issued the Report, "Delinquent Generation", in which it stressed that a very important age in a child's development was at 4

and 5 years. It is clear from our experiences in investigating this matter in London that only the minority of mothers of children in these high flats are really able, if they have other family responsibilities, to see that their children have the opportunities that they should have.
It is true that some of their fears about safety are, to a certain extent, subjective. They have not become accustomed themselves to living fifteen, sixteen or twenty storeys above the ground. They are worried about balconies, and to some extent that is a subjective fear. But their main difficulty—providing adequate play facilities for their children—is a very real one, and we have a social obligation to meet it.
I have not tried to say more than that adequate play space should be provided. That leaves the widest discretion to the Minister and his staff. If we are to provide adequate play space we need outdoor play space, and a covered area and also a place for storage of equipment. It is also advisable that persons planning these flats should consult those who have had experience of children's play. One is apt to find certain architects producing what they consider to be an attractive scheme which, architecturally and aesthetically, it may be, but which has nothing to commend it from the point of view of those who know what children want in their play activities.
I have been interested to find that in some of the schemes for flats which look attractive at first glance one finds, on going into the matter further, that, though a scheme may be architecturally and aesthetically attractive, it nowhere includes a place where a small child can play without running off, possibly into a main road. Similarly, there may not be a place for equipment. Small children like big things which they can push and pull and it is essential to have somewhere to store them. I need hardly stress that some lavatory accommodation is vital, as the child cannot get up to his fifteenth floor in time.
All these things may seem trivial, but they are very important for the happiness of the mothers and children living in these high flats, and this matter should be something which the Minister should discuss at the stage when a local authority is submitting its plans. The


Minister looks into all kinds of other matters and maintains standards for them. I suggest that the matter of play facilities for children is sufficiently important for him to recognise a responsibility and to have suitable standards. What precisely those standards should be may well await the report of the subcommittee on housing standards which is sitting at present.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the principle of the Amendment. I feel that we ought to insist that if we are to encourage very high buildings we should make quite sure that we are doing nothing detrimental to the children living in them. I want briefly to deal with one answer which was made to me when I first looked into this matter. It is the answer, "Ah, yes! You need not concern yourself. Our housing policy is that we do not put families with small children into high flats."
I think it true that in some parts of the country there are authorities which have high flats in their housing accommodation, but have sufficient alternative housing to be able to operate a pretty flexible policy. But I have no doubt, particularly in London and some other cities, that there cannot be that degree of moveability among tenants to ensure that as soon as a child arrives the family can be offered alternative accommodation in a ground floor maisonette or house with a garden. From our investigation we found that the number of families with young children living in the highest blocks of flats was nearly the same as the proportion of families with young children in the population as a whole. So that argument for not doing anything cannot be accepted.
One of the great difficulties in this matter is the division of responsibility among different departments of local authorities. The question of play space is partly the responsibility of the education authority and partly that of the parks and open spaces committee. If the space is immediately adjacent to a housing estate it would come under the housing committee. There is this diffusion of authority, and so it is the more difficult to pin responsibility for the provision of play space on any one department or committee. But that the basic physical provision on a housing estate has to be made by the housing authority

is incontrovertible, and therefore I contend that the responsibility should be accepted by the Minister. He should agree to take the responsibility for setting standards and for seeing that those standards are complied with.
I commend anyone who is interested in this matter to read the reports issued by the Minister's Department and then, if they live in an area where high flats are being built, to look to see how far the recommendations contained in those reports have or have not been carried out.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) for her speech. This is a subject in which I have been deeply interested for many years. The hon. Lady was good enough to refer to the Report of the sub-committee under my chairmanship entitled Living in Flats which was published about nine years ago. I still have fairly vivid recollections of that Report as I wrote a good deal of it myself.
There is no doubt of the importance of this subject not only in relation to high blocks of flats but also to large housing estates. The whole Committee is indebted to the hon. Lady and to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and their colleagues who served on the committee which supervised the production of this Report. I have a copy of the Report before me and I have read it thoroughly. There is a great deal in it which is of interest and of value to us all. The inquiry was, of course, largely confined to London, although some information was obtained from Liverpool and Birmingham. There is no doubt that it is a document which adds to our knowledge. We have not yet the complete answers on any of these matters.
When serving on the sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee about ten years ago, I was struck by certain discoveries. One was that some authorities seemed to have their eyes much wider open to the needs of children than others. Secondly, a provision which was happily and successfully used in some areas seemed to be little appreciated in others. So one cannot be certain, neither the architect nor anybody else can be certain, that what


is being provided by the architest and by the authority will turn out to be just what the children want.
8.15 p.m.
No doubt the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East will recollect that there was a time when everyone spoke highly of roof playgrounds. Some of the roof playgrounds which I have seen were a great success; others were almost deserted. And so it goes on. But we are learning all the time. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that the problem takes on new form, now that the five-storey blocks of flats, with which we were so familiar ten years ago, are being largely succeeded by blocks of eight, twelve or twenty storeys.
I certainly accept responsibility in this matter. I am not technically responsible to Parliament for child welfare. But, as the Housing Minister, I regard these matters, for children as for old people, as well within my sphere of interest. I am extremely anxious that we should steadily improve the provisions made by local authorities for the children on their estates, but I do not think that the right way to do that is by regulations, as the Amendment suggests.
Hitherto we have not operated by means of regulations. Were we to make provision for regulations in this respect, the question would arise at once, why should this be singled out, when, as all hon. Members who have served on housing committees will know, there are many other aspects of social life on housing estates and in blocks of flats which require their proper attention. Rather the procedure should be that the Minister should require himself to be satisfied of all relevant matters before he approves a scheme.
I noticed that the specific recommendation on page 25 of the booklet, "Two to Five in High Flats" was:
When plans are submitted to the Ministry under Circular No. 48/57 or by similar procedure, considerable notice should be taken of the proposed siting of such playgrounds.…
and so forth. I think it a valuable suggestion that that method should be used. It has been in my mind that when I am next sending out a circular to local authorities on this or related matters, I should draw attention to the need for proper provision for children's play.
The hon. Lady has mentioned the Report of the sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee on the design of dwellings. I asked that sub-committee to undertake a thorough study of the design of dwellings because it seemed to me that the Report of the Dudley Committee in 1944, though excellent in its time, had been rendered out of date by social developments; and that now, when we have had fifteen or sixteen years 'of building since the war, it was time to take stock afresh. A very strong group of people was willing to serve on that Sub-Committee. Some of the group are members of the statutory Central Housing Advisory Committee, and some were co-opted. The subcommittee has been at work under the chairmanship of Sir Parker Morris, known to many hon. Members as the distinguished former town clerk of Westminster. He has always had a very keen interest in housing questions, not only as a local government officer, but as an individual citizen.
I understand that that sub-committee will be meeting shortly to complete its report. I do not know what it will say in its report, but I know from the investigations it has been making and the evidence it has been taking that it has given considerable attention to all these problems of play space for children in flats. I shall therefore be very surprised and disappointed if the sub-committee does not come forward with useful recommendations.
The general procedure of these subcommittees of the Central Housing Advisory Committee is that, if the report is endorsed by the Central Committee, it is published and normally commended to local authorities by a circular from the Minister. That was done by the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Report on Living in Flats was produced. The commendation of that Report, although in some respects it is out of date—not by any means in all respects—still stands and has never been withdrawn.
I am setting great store by the report which I am hoping to receive quite shortly from Sir Parker Morris's Committee. If out of all the experience it has gained, from the visits paid and evidence received, it has distilled valuable recommendations on this whole


subject, I shall certainly be very happy to commend them to local authorities and to tell local authorities that when submitting their plans for new housing schemes to me in accordance with that circular I shall expect to be notified by them of the provision they are making for children's play space.
In what I have said I do not mean for a moment to decry the Report of the Committee of which the hon. Lady was chairman. Indeed, I have already paid tribute to its value, but the subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee will have cast its net wider. It has been at work for a considerable time now. It may well endorse these recommendations. I am not yet in a position to say. I feel sure that its report, when it becomes available, will be of great value to the Minister and, I believe, to local authorities and to people who are interested in housing—of whom fortunately there are thousands now—but who do not hold any official position.
If, therefore, I ask the hon. Lady not to press this Amendment, which would require me to make regulations, it is not that I wish to diminish for a moment the importance of this subject. I simply submit to her that the better way of going about it would be the way which is implicit in the recommendations of the Report of the Committee over which she presided. I believe that in her speech she said that she wanted the Minister's staff to have a word about these matters with the local authorities at the stage when they were submitting plans. I hope that we can do more than that. I hope that we can give the local authorities guidance when I have received the report of Sir Parker Morris's Committee. Then I can use the normal machinery of a circular to indicate to the local authorities that when they send in their plans for high blocks of flats I shall desire to know what provision they intend to make for the children to be able to play.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for creating this opportunity of a discussion in Parliament on this important subject. She knows my good will towards it. I hope that she will accept that I have spoken in all sincerity about her Amendment.

Mrs. White: If you, Sir William, would accept a manuscript Amendment to remove the words "by regulation" from this Amendment, would the Minister be able to accept it?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think I could accept that because I do not think it appropriate suddenly to put into the Housing Acts a particular provision of this kind singling out one facet from all the many matters which are important when a Minister is considering plans and lay-outs submitted by a local authority and ignoring all the others. When these housing schemes are submitted we have to look at them from every point of view and decide whether on the site in question the local authority is doing the very best it can to meet a whole variety of requirements.
I am quite sure that the hon. Lady would not suggest that this is the only requirement which matters, although it is one which matters a great deal. For that reason, I do not think we should be wise to write anything into the Bill to this effect, but she can hold me to anything and everything that I have said in my reply to the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I was very hopeful when the Minister started on his reply. I thought that for once we were to find that he would bind himself to something. I know what the trouble is. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has put into this Amendment two words which at present are separated by two other words which she has suggested might be removed. The Amendment says, "the Minister shall … require."
The Minister said that he would indicate to the authorities that he desired something. The desires of Ministers are not always welcomed by local authorities, who are inclined to think that the desire of the Minister is an attempt to thwart them from their particular purpose. The Minister admits, on what I should broadly call health grounds, that it is desirable for children living in high flats occasionally to be brought down to mother earth and to be allowed to romp about.
I recollect that there was an inquiry by a social worker from Liverpool University into conditions on Tyneside. He suggested that young children were very much like chickens. If chickens are kept on boards


or concrete they grow up with very deficient legs because they are not able to scratch on those surfaces. This social worker went so far as to say that when children lived in flats and never got down to mother earth the result sometimes was that they developed rickets. I do not say that I accept that as a complete truth in every case, but there is no doubt that it is essential for young children, as for all young animals, to be able to romp about on grass under proper care and supervision. I had hoped that the Minister would go so far as to say that when a scheme is submitted to him in future, if it does not contain this provision, he will take the strong steps which a determined Minister can take to ensure that this provision shall be made.
In my constituency there are blocks of flats. I do not think we have any as high as twenty storeys yet, but they are getting up to pretty good heights, and when one thinks of young children living even only half-way up those flights of stairs one realises that it is obviously going to be a matter of some difficulty for them to get an adequate amount of reasonable recreation before the time when they want to take part in organised games. Merely to crawl about on the earth and to make contact with their contemporaries is a desirable thing from the point of view of health, and certainly from the point of view of encouraging them to grow into the community life that surrounds them.
The Minister started with such enthusiasm that one would have thought that he was the originator of this idea and that he was glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East, in spite of the bad company she keeps, so capable of learning from the instruction that he had given. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that this is a matter of grave concern, and where local authorities do not submit schemes which contain this provision I hope that, in view of what has been said tonight by hon. Members, including himself, he will feel entitled to make it plain that this is an essential requirement for the benefit of the rising generation.
8.30 p.m.
I do not like the words "pre-school age" in my hon. Friend's Amendment. There are plenty of examples in the Education Acts which would enable her

to say quite simply "under five years of age". That would deal with that matter. However, as the Minister is not going to accept the Amendment and as the Whips would be put on if my hon. Friend were to attempt to push it through, we need not worry about that. I support the spirit of the Amendment and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will live up to the glorious past that he has had in this matter, in his own eyes, and will find here fruits for repentance for many of the bad things he has done since he lost that early enthusiasm.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I welcome for the first time since half-past three the Minister coming a little way towards us, but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I am a little concerned that he should follow this through with the utmost vigour by the various methods that he suggested, other than by this Amendment, should my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) decide to withdraw it.
I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman gave the commendation which was due to my hon. Friend for bringing this Amendment before the House. Previously we made a plea for the aged, and we failed. This is essentially a plea for the little children. We have not succeeded, but at least we have drawn the Minister a little way towards us, even if he is resting on the trails of glory of his past with the L.C.C.
The Amendment affects particularly people in my constituency. The Minister knows! that we have to build high, and that we have a housing problem of which I keep him fully informed week after week by sending him a barrage of letters. The people for whom we must build are in a strictly pointed scheme which decides allocation. We need one when we have 10,000 on the housing list. A large number of these people have young children and young families, and this Amendment would not only be of value to the children but would provide an amenity for the whole of family life.
I was particularly interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East about the hazards to mothers living in twelve- and fifteen-storey flats—not only the actual hazards


but the feeling of hazard, which is perhaps even more important. The Committee will know that one of the big problems of 1961 is that of stress, the feeling of strain, the burden of trying to cope with the complications and speed of modern life. There is an additional strain on a young mother trying to bring up a family in a block of fiats of this kind, when every time the child, aged from two to five, goes on to the balcony on the thirteenth storey she wonders "Is it all right?" Maternal anxiety is heightened by this constant fear for the safety of youngsters because of real or possible hazards.
The hazards may not in reality be there. The authority which has built the flats may have put in adequate balconies and protection to ensure that a child could not fall. However, I know from my own experience of the fear which mothers can feel on, for instance, the Eiffel Tower or the Monument in London. They have a sense of insecurity, although the insecurity is in their minds rather than in the place itself. That this inner tension should not be added to is important from the point of view of health.
The Parliamentary Secretary has in previous debates today demonstrated a new approach. In our jargon of political argument, we have the economic man and the organisation man. Tonight we have heard a good deal about the average man. It is a fallacy to keep on trying to work to averages. We average this and we average that. What we do not do is something for the average young child. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has shown us quite clearly that the average child wants to be in a situation where he is able to play and romp with his own kind close to nature where there are trees and grass.

Mr. Ede: Having been a teacher, I know that there is no average child.

Mr. Pavitt: At least, we want this unaverage child to have the opportunity of average association with mother earth.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: The normal child.

Mr. Pavitt: I shall not be drawn by my hon. Friend into a discussion of

normality because that, again, in medical terms, is always very difficult to define.
The Minister has responded to the very human plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East in a way which I have not seen before in our debates. In previous debates, I have wished that the groundsmen at Lords might give us a little ridge in the middle of the wicket so that some of our bowling might be more effective and make the Minister a little less adamant, obstinate and immovable. However, he did at least move slightly out of his crease.
We hope to see some action. When the report of which we have heard comes out, there must be results. So often the Minister gives us faint promises that something will be done and yet, weeks later, he still has to answer Questions at the Dispatch Box when we ask whether anything has been done or when it will be done. Having in mind particularly the problems of London and Middlesex constituencies, I urge the Minister to do all in his power to meet the spirit of the Amendment.

Sir Barnett Janner: I cannot understand the Minister's refusal to accept the Amendment. If there were no problem, if the matter had not been investigated, and if it were a question of providing for the future and deciding merely that the matter would arise later on, his answer would be adequate. But it is not that. A thorough investigation has been made. Certain recommendations have been made. The Minister agrees with the recommendations but is not prepared to make them mandatory. Why not? What is wrong with such a proposal?
It has been found that in many instances people were entirely satisfied with the accommodation they had in all other respects; in other words, what had been done was satisfactory and in accordance with the requirements of local authorities or of the Minister himself. Nevertheless, many flats have been erected in which provision for children to play has not been provided. There has been neglect somewhere in this respect, there has been misunderstanding, or someone has not done what he ought to have done when the planning took place.
The Minister overlooks the fact that, day by day, the position is deteriorating and there is constant pressure to build flats because the cost of land is rising. Consequently, anyone who wants to save will save at the expense of amenities like this if he can possibly do so. The Minister says that if we start making provisions mandatory, we shall never stop. The fact that up to now it has not been regarded as essential to make a thing mandatory, does not necessarily mean that something which should be remedied should not be remedied by a mandatory provision which indicates immediately to those taking advantage of the subsidy that they will no longer be able to do so unless and until they are prepared to provide this very important amenity.
Why is the Minister so timorous about this? My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that he would indicate that he desires that this should come about. That is precisely what the Minister said. He said, "I am not going to demand it because I cannot do so". If it came to a legal argument, he would find himself in a difficulty which could be avoided by making a mandatory provision of this kind. Those of us who are in the law know very well that the word "desirable" can be turned and twisted in all sorts of ways. Far be it from me to suggest that we have done this wrongly, but people are entitled to argue that the word "desirable" has certain implications. People's desires may differ from what is required under a mandatory provision.
Let us not minimise the importance of this matter. It is all very well to talk in terms of sociology. The need for this provision is evident. Children cannot be kept indoors in a large building. Not all people are so wealthy that they can have nurses to take their children to the parks. All that they can do is to find the nearest place where their children can have playing facilities and can be watched and looked after.
There must be a little soul in the provision of housing accommodation. The home must be the sort of home a person would choose if he were free to choose it. People are not free to do that because there is not enough accommoda-

tion to go round. The Minister should gladly welcome this Amendment. It is a cushion between him and the local authorities. It may be said that, since there is not sufficient space to accommodate people wanting accommodation, is it not far better to use the space which is available to accommodate more people rather than to use it for this kind of playing facility? These are very important matters. No matter how desirable a thing may be, it may be argued that it is much more desirable to utilise space for another purpose.
8.45 p.m.
This is so essential a proposal that the Minister should accept it, not only because we want it but because he himself states that he wants it. If he wants it, he should ensure that it is done. He cannot ensure that it is done merely by the provision of regulations, which might be altered by a successor, even in his own Government, who, possibly, does not have the same goodness of heart. There are many who would not be as lenient as the right hon. Gentleman. I ask him to concede the Amendment, because it is the only way of dealing with the matter.

Mrs. Butler: I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Amendment. My hon. Friends have said that he has come part of the way to meet us and has then retreated. The very fat volume of proceedings in the Committee on the Bill is largely a record of other occasions on which the Minister came part of the way to meet us and then retreated. It has been our experience throughout the Bill that, however excellent the case put forward from this side, the Minister has said some fair things but has then done virtually nothing to meet the points we have made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) is perfectly right in seeking the enforcement of provision for children in high blocks of flats. It is just about a year ago that I had a frantic telephone call from one of my constituents, who was the mother of three children under the age of 5, living in an upper maisonette in a block of flats. It was not one of the high blocks, but it illustrates the problem.
My constituent was afraid to let her children play on the balcony in case they climbed up and fell over. She let them play on the space outside the flats of


elderly tenants living on the ground floor. The children, going up and down with their tricycles and all their odds and ends, drove the old people frantic. One of them was an elderly gentleman of determined disposition who threatened the children with all kinds of dire consequences if they did not go away. This developed to such a point that the mothers of the small children and the elderly people down below were completely at loggerheads on the question of the children playing where they naturally played, just outside the elderly persons' flats. It became a matter of such desperation that the housing office had to take emergency action. The important thing is that it resulted in bad relations from the outset between two groups of tenants, the parents of the young children and the elderly persons, which are difficult to overcome once they have been established.
The fact that no provision was made for those small children by the local authority was not due to any lack of good will. When the flats were put up, the local authority thought that because there was a school playground just across the road with playing space, that would be adequate. It was not realised—it was a matter very largely of failure of imagination on the part of those responsible—that the traffic along the road which separated the flats from the playing space would greatly increase and make it impossible for the small children to go over to play. Had there been a requirement by the Minister when the flats were erected, the local authority would have had to provide playing space for the small children. It is essential that there should be a requirement by the Ministry so that this provision is embodied at the very beginning. All kinds of difficulties arise, not only those which I have mentioned, if it is not done when the flats are first built.
The position is greatly exaggerated where there are vary high blocks of flats. I ask the Minister to realise that it is not enough to await a report which he is expecting to receive. I notice that, almost always, he is expecting to receive a report when we bring forward a good point from this side of the Committee. That is not enough. He must assert his responsibility. It is not only for all the reasons which my hon. Friends have

put forward that we want this provision; it is because we see that this kind of provision will be the key-note of these high blocks of flats. If high blocks of flats put up by local authorities have this kind of provision, they will begin to be real homes where families can live happily. Without it, they will be, what so many of them have been in the past, rather soul-destroying places in which to live.
One of the saddest things in the world in which we live today, although it is inevitable, is to see gardens, in which children once played, having large blocks of flats built on them. We have somehow, in this inevitable change, to provide adequate playing space for them. We have to provide it for the older children. My hon. Friends have pointed out that often when we read reports in the papers of juvenile delinquents they come from blocks of flats where there is no adequate provision of playing space.
This would be a start for the small children under 5 who cannot play in the parks. The Minister has said that he does not know exactly what to provide at this stage. He is hoping that he will know better a little later. I would point out that it has been my position in recent years to give approval to housing schemes where modifications have had to be made, not once but several times, to meet the requirements of the planning authority for the provision of garages. A scheme has been drawn up for so many garages per group of flats, and as the planning authority's requirement of garages has increased, more garages had to be added to the plan before the scheme could be carried out. We have reached the point where, in many parts of the country, one garage has to be provided for one flat. That is a common experience. As planning authorities have recognised the need for more garages they have increased their requirements of the housing authorities and said, "Put more garages in your plans". As our understanding of the playing needs of children develop, we can increase our requirements for them.
I submit to the Minister that we have enough knowledge at this stage to be able to say to all local authorities putting up high blocks of flats that they must make special playing provision for children under 5 and as we learn more about it we can stretch the requirements


to meet the increased needs. We must make a start. Unless the Minister accepts the Amendment, or one similar to it, we shall not have made a start. Whatever he may say about reports that he expects to receive and the advice he expects to have, we must do something here and now. I hope that he will accept the spirit of the Amendment and give his assurance that he will do something effective about the points which have been made to him.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I want to make three specific points to the Minister about the Amendment. In Committee upstairs we had twenty-two sittings and we went through the Bill very carefully. I cannot remember one major case where the Minister was able to meet the many constructive suggestions that were put to him. In one or two minor instances he did.
Here, however, we are faced with a very thoughtful Amendment. It may want verbal improvement, perhaps, but I want to argue what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) argued when she moved the Amendment. I want the Minister to accept the spirit of the Amendment and write the purport of it into the Bill, for a third reason which I shall come to in a few moments.
First, however, I would point out that we have been talking today as though we were dealing with a Bill which marks a great step forward in housing history. Frankly, it does not. If we want to innovate great new departures involving new policies we have to add up the books. The Minister has told us clearly, having added up the books, that the cost under this Bill, through the redeployment of subsidies, will be in the long run precisely what the cost is now. This Amendment would not cost the Minister any money. I would beg him to have that point in mind if he has in his mind the accountancy problem. Perhaps he would devote his mind and judgment to this and move away a little from the accountancy problem.
My second point is this. In Lancashire and Yorkshire, counties which I know, apart from the major cities, we have not had a great deal of experience of or willingness—I want to be quite candid about that willingness—to go into this question of tall buildings for families. We know that, as, for instance, in Old-

ham, there is a restricted amount of land, and there is a responsibility on the local authorities and all those who take an interest in social development in the older towns, including the Members of Parliament for those areas, to try to encourage as far as possible the introduction of this sort of secondary form of housing when we cannot obtain the form of housing we should in the first place have liked.
Here, in the Amendment, there is an insurance which we should like written into the Bill for the sake of the young mothers, in particular, in some of those northern towns who are concerned about measures of adequate safety for themselves and their children. The first time I went into one of the high blocks of flats in London some time ago I was struck first of all by the apprehensive thought that here there was a great danger to children, a danger of falling over the balustrade. I thought of the anxieties I should have felt if my three girls had been living there when they were very much younger.
If the Minister wants to help the older towns which have to face this space problem, he could, I suggest to him, reassure them by writing into his Bill the sentiments of this Amendment.
My last point is this. Housing authorities, and, in particular, the clerks of the authorities, are not over-persuaded by the Minister's circulars. They get hold of the Acts of Parliament. They will get hold of this Bill if and when it becomes an Act. It may be that in a year or two there will be another Housing Bill improving this one. However, they will get hold of the Act, and such a provision as is mentioned in the Amendment is not likely to be applied unless it is specifically written into the Act. Perhaps by an oversight of the officers of the local authority it may not be brought to the full notice of the authority because it was not written into the Measure. I know from my experience of local authority work that the members of local authorities pay full attention to the advice given them by the officers of the local authorities, and I know that if the members of the housing authority ask, "What is in the Act?" about such and such a matter, the officers will inform them what exactly is in it and what must be complied with.
If, on the other hand, we accept the Minister's assurance given in good faith—and I have not the slightest doubt that it will be carried out—that a circular will be issued, it may be brought to the notice of an authority at its committee meetings but in a year or two's time, in the midst of all their work, would anyone say that that circular would always be in the minds of members of the authority? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is no intention on this side of the Committee to hamper his work. We are trying to write into the Bill the machinery of his hopes for ensuring a safe family life in these buildings. This is no time to travel hopefully. This is the time to provide the machinery and to write it into the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will make sure that the Bill carries explicitly in it the assurances that are said to lie behind the Clause.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I had not intended to take part in the debate, but I have listened to the whole of it and, frankly, I think that my right hon. Friend is batting on a very sticky wicket. There have been substantial changes since the war both in housing and in the growth of population. I have not the exact figures, but I believe that in 1939 our population was about 48 million and that the present census will show a population of between 52 million and 53 million.
About a century ago the population was roughly half that figure. It was possible in those days for houses to be built and for people to have gardens in which they could allow their children to play and in which they could bring them up in the way that many of us would like to see them brought up today. As the population increases the country does not get bigger. Obviously it gets smaller, and the concept of housing has changed markedly in the last quarter of a century. We can no longer think in terms of houses with gardens spread over frontages of 30 to 35 feet and with a depth of 120 feet because we cannot afford areas of that size to be given over to one family. We have to think in terms of ten, fifteen or twenty storeys, and maybe in ten or fifteen years' time we shall be building as high as people do in New York.
The responsibilities of bringing up our children in safety and giving them a reasonable family life and an area in which to play increases. I do not think my right hon. Friend has indicated today that the Ministry of Housing has any real idea of how to face the problems of the next quarter century. There are many people, regretfully, who think of the Civil Service in this country as being half a century behind the times.

Mr. Brooke: If my hon. Friend is going to attack anybody, will he attack me? I am responsible for everything that is done by my Ministry.

Mr. Cooper: I am not attacking any individual officer in the Civil Service, but the fact remains that Ministers of the Crown are briefed very substantially from the Civil Service. We must accept the fact that we do not move as fast as we should like to do in many ways. There are many areas, many boroughs, particularly in London itself, where of necessity fiat dwellings of considerable height have to be built, and where there is not within those areas the playing facilities for the children who will be there in their hundreds. I ask my right hon. Friend seriously to consider this problem, not with a view to 1961, but with a view to what is going to happen in 1970 or 1980, when our population may be going up by 5 million or 10 million, and when the area for building will be less and less and we shall have to go higher and higher. This is a very serious problem, and quite frankly I think that the Committee owes a debt to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) who put this Amendment on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Parkin: The Minister has not cut a very heroic figure in our discussion. When I reflect back on his early months at the Ministry, on the obstinate courage with which he defended the property owners when he was seeing the Rent Act through, when he defied the whole Opposition and a large number of people on his own side, how he hurled deputations and petitions out of his way without quailing, and emerged as the strong man—when I reflect on all this, I cannot recognise the same figure this evening. We saw a—
wee, cow'rin', timorous beastie.


and what a panic was "in his breastie" when we offered him discretion. The Parliamentary Secretary had to get up and say, "Oh, do not do that crooked architects may take advantage of it". Now, he says, "Please do not make me do this by regulation. I know it is terribly important. I have thought of it for a long time, and I will mention it to them the next time I am writing"
The contrast between the two approaches—when defending property and looking after human beings—shows that these people are approximately true to type as the generations go, by. I am always hoping for a better reply, and I thought that this was an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman could not resist. Otherwise, I would have gone out into the Library and looked up the Factory Act, because I am perfectly certain that the same argument was put forward in those days by that party explaining how impossible it was to do these things by regulations and keep these children away from machines in factories, but promising to write to someone about it and make some suggestions.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman cannot complain if we attack him in these terms after the attitude which he has taken up. Of course, the cases are roughly parallel, and this is a social problem which has to be looked at. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have restrained themselves considerably in the discussion on this Amendment in an admirable desire not to prolong the debate, but consider what has been left unsaid on this subject of the lives of the children, and list the things which this new type of life will take away from the children, even from the children who live in the old-fashioned ruins and slums—certain things we have held to be essential in the self-education of little people.
Learning to taste and feel by putting into their mouths hundreds of things which their mothers never knew, to get healthily dirty and to take terrific risks of getting lost in the dark in the caverns of the garden or round the corner or away in the baker's backyard—all that sort of thing which has been an essential and recognised part of the growing-up process.
We thought how are these things to be replaced, because they must be replaced,

and yet when we have only a few tentative proposals put forward by my hon. Friends in this modest Amendment the right hon. Gentleman will not even undertake to give instructions to the local authorities that if they are to ask children to live in these new and strange circumstances there are one or two elementary things which they must do. This is one of them, and he should say, "I shall not authorise the scheme unless you do it".
What else is he capable of refusing in the way of Ministerial responsibility? He rose in a moment of anger and said that he was responsible for what went on in his Ministry. He is, and he will be held responsible if he is not prepared to show the same courage and drive in dealing with human problems as in dealing with the rights of property owners.

Mr. Loughlin: It would be discourteous if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary did not reply to some of the pleas and some of the arguments so cogently put on this Amendment. Some of the best were those of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper). He saw the picture in its entirety and appreciated that we were dealing not merely with the flats of the 1960s, but with the whole question of the growth of the nation and the future of its children, many of them likely to be subjected to a form of life completely foreign to children.
It is not enough for the Minister to say that he will write to local authorities pointing out that it is desirable that play areas should be provided. Many if not most local authorities are jealous about meeting the requirements of the community and not many will need prodding. Most are facing this situation in the only way possible—by building high blocks of flats. But it is my experience that local authorities do not want to build blocks of flats except where that is essential, the exception being the L.C.C.
For many local authorities, particularly n the large cities and towns, there is an insoluble problem. They cannot produce sufficient accommodation other than by building high. Many local authorities have had to revise their views about the number of storeys in blocks of flats. Each additional storey, however, constitutes an additional factor which a mother of small children has to face.
I do not want to deal with what was or was not good for children, or the tastes which we acquire over the years, but I know that small children should not be cooped up in blocks of flats without some opportunity for freedom of expression. I have heard tenants of flats describe life in flats as hell on earth because of the difficulty of insulating flats against noise and because of the necessity for mothers to keep their children within the four walls of the flats.
Nevertheless, I want flats to be available and for there to be mixed communities in local authority buildings. I do not want to see huge blocks of flats with married couple with no children living in one area, and married couples with three or four children living in another area.
9.15 p.m.
Unless the Minister is prepared to accept responsibility for ensuring that these amenities are available, not only will children be cooped up in these large blocks of flats but we will create nuisances for other people living in them, in addition to creating the stresses and strains which produce broken marriages and produce what to me would be the ultimate misery. One cannot expect a young mother, with perhaps two or three children, who already has to cope with the stresses and strains of living in the world of today, to leave her children on a balcony which perhaps she thinks not high enough to be safe. Through having to worry about the safety of their children, and because of the strain due to constant conflicts between herself and her neighbours, she will not be a happy state of mind to continue reasonably normal relations with her husband when he comes home in the evening.

It should not be difficult to make provision for playing areas. It should be a relatively simple job for any architect, but the trouble with most architects is that they think in terms of lines, without thinking of the human beings who will live within those lines. It should be relatively simple, without great additional cost, to make provision for playing space. I shall have something to say about the amount of subsidy involved in relation to the high cost of building flats when we come to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." It would be relatively simple for the Minister to invoke the provision which we are asking him to accept without involving local authorities in additional costs.

It would be most inconsiderate, if not discourteous, if the Minister failed to respond to some of the pleas made by my hon. Friends. I have no hope of him ever accepting any pleas. I do not think that he appreciates kindness. The only thing that he thinks about, and in which he has any confidence, is the number of hon. Members who go into the Division Lobby. If he will not reconsider his decision, he ought out of courtesy to explain why.

Mr. MacColl: I do not know what my hon. Friend feels about the way this discussion has gone, but my impression is that the Minister's attitude is not indicative of the depth of feeling in the Committee, as expressed by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper). My feeling is that this is a matter on which we should show our deep concern by dividing the Committee.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 161, Noes 216.

Division No. 224.]
AYES
[9.20 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dodds, Norman


Ainsley, William
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Driberg, Tom


Albu, Austen
Callaghan, James
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Castle, Mrs, Barbara
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chapman, Donald
Evans, Albert


Awbery, Stan
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Finch, Harold


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cronin, John
Fletcher, Eric


Bence, Cyril
Crosland, Anthony
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)


Blyton, William
Crossman, R. H. S.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bowles, Frank
Davies, Harold (Leek)
George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)


Boyden, James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ginsburg, David


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, S, O. (Merthyr)
Greenwood, Anthony


Brockway, A. Fenner
Deer, George
Grey, Charles


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)




Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, A. C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mapp, Charles
Snow, Julian


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Mendelson, J. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mitchison, G. R.
Steele, Thomas


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Monslow, Walter
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Holman, Percy
Moody, A. S.
Stonehouse, John


Houghton, Douglas
Morris, John
Stones, William


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mort, D. L.
Swain, Thomas


Hoy, James H.
Moyle, Arthur
Swingler, Stephen


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Frederick
Sylvester, George


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold
Symonds, J. B.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hunter, A. E.
Oram, A. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Padley, W. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Parker, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jeger, George
Parkin, B. T.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurence
Thornton, Ernest


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Peart, Frederick
Timmons, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman
Walnwright, Edwin


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.
Warbey, William


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Watkins, Tudor


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Kelley, Richard
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Kenyon, Clifford
Randall, Harry
White, Mrs. Eirene


Key, Rt, Hon. C. W.
Rankin, John
Whitlock, William


King, Dr. Horace
Redhead, E. C.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Frederick


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Logan, David
Ross, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Loughlin, Charles
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


McCann, John
Short, Edward
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


MacColl, James
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Winterbottom, R. E.


McInnes, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)



McKay, John (Wallsend)
Skeffington, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Mr. Lawson and


Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Mr. Charles A. Howeli




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cooper-Key Sir Neill
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Aitken, W. T.
Cordeaux Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hiley, Joseph


Allason, James
Corfield, F. V.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hirst, Geoffrey


Atkins, Humphrey
Currie, G. B. H.
Hocking, Philip N.


Barlow, Sir John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Holland, Philip


Barter, John
Dance, James
Hornby, R. P.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Bell, Ronald
Deedes, W. F.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
de Ferranti, Basil
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Berkeley, Humphry
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
du Cann, Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bidgood, John C.
Duncan, Sir James
Jackson, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bishop, F. P.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Black, Sir Cyril
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bourne-Arton, A.
Farr, John
Joseph, Sir Keith


Box, Donald
Fell, Anthony
Kerans, Cdr. J. S,


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Finlay, Graeme
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Brewis, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Freeth, Denzil
Langford-Holt, J.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gammans, Lady
Leavey, J. A.


Bryan, Paul
Gardner, Edward
Leburn, Gilmour


Buck, Antony
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lilley, F. J. P.


Bullard, Denys
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Burden, F. A.
Goodhew, Victor
Longbottom, Charles


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron walden)
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Loveys, Walter H.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Green, Alan
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gresham Cooke, R.
McAdden, Stephen


Cary, Sir Robert
Gurden, Harold
MacArthur, Ian


Channon, H. P. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaren, Martin


Chataway, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harrison, Col J. H. (Eye)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Cleaver, Leonard
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Cole, Norman
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maddan, Martin


Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Cooper, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marshall, Douglas







Marten, Neil
Renton, David
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Turner, Colin


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Robson Brown, Sir William
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Nabarro, Gerald
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Roots, William
van Stranbenzee, W. R.


Noble, Michael
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Sharples, Richard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Shepherd, William
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walder, David


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswiok)
Walker, Peter


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Smithers, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Partridge, E.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Ward, Dame Irene


Peel, John
Speir, Rupert
Whitelaw, William


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Pitt, Miss Edith
Stevens, Geoffrey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pott, Percivall
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stodart, J. A.
Wise, A. R.


Prior, J. M. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Woodhouse, C. M.




Woodnutt, Mark


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Storey, Sir Samuel
Woollam, John


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Studholme, Sir Henry
Worsley, Marcus


Pym, Francis
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)



Ramsden, James
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Rees, Hugh
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Mr. F. Pearson.


Rees-Oavies, w. R.
Temple, John M.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Loughlin: Before we part with this Clause, I think that we should satisfy ourselves completely that the subsidies mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are adequate to deal with the problem with which we are faced. I think it accurate to say that there is on the part of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary a recognition that the building of high blocks of flats is something which will occupy the attention of most of the larger local authorities for many years to come. When looking at the proposed subsidies it is necessary to make some comparisons between the relative cost of house building and flat building.
On one occasion during the Committee stage discussions the Minister indicated that this was his approach. The right hon. Gentleman said that many hon. Members had said that building costs had risen since 1956. He went on to say that he had no evidence that the gap between the cost of building high and building low had widened in that time. This is the issue with which we are faced when examining the adequacy or otherwise of the subsidies mentioned in this Clause.
I notice that since the result of the last division was announced the number of hon. Members of the party opposite who are in the Chamber has increased. Apparently they are not con-

cerned with the business of this Committee, because, if they were, they would be more attentive and take less notice of the "sub-committee meetings" which appear to be taking place. If hon. Members opposite wish to take part in sub-committee meetings, I think that it would be as well for them to go back and do so in the bar. This is a serious matter for the people they seek to represent. The local authorities which they represent are—

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I feel that I should ask the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) to exclude from his remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) who is seated next to me.

Mr. Loughlin: Is it possible that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) was on the Centre Court.
I return to the point I was making regarding the adequacy or otherwise of these subsidies. That is largely determined by the cost of building which increases as the storeys are added. I do not want to repeat again the facts which I gave to the Minister during the Committee stage proceedings relating to the City of Birmingham. At that time the Minister said that if hon. Members, or local authorities, could give him the requisite information regarding the widening of the gap between the cost of building traditional type houses and high


flats, upon which the subsidies were based, he would reconsider the figures contained in this Clause. I gave him chapter and verse about the position as it related to the City of Birmingham. I think that the City of Birmingham is no different from other cities and large towns in the country in relation to the building of high flats.
I am not satisfied that the promise given by the Minister has been carried out. If he makes a promise to consider, or reconsider, his decision in relation to information submitted to him by hon. members or by local authorities, the Minister should at least accept that he was originally wrong in his contention. It may well be that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, knowing that this discussion was to take place, will have some information to give the Committee about the cost of building high flats and the widening gap between traditional building and the building of high blocks of flats. If he has not got that information he ought to get it from his large staff and give it to the Committee.
It is on the basis of the contention of the Minister that there has been no widening of the gap in this type of building that the subsidies are based. I want to be very careful here because reference was made in discussion of a previous Amendment to this, but I should have thought that on the figures supplied to the Minister the Parliamentary Secretary could give us the information.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to be discourteous in any way to the hon. Member. He will agree, I hope, that the particular subject he has raised was fairly discussed this afternoon. I rise now to deal with the one point which perhaps has not been mentioned before, the example of Birmingham costs. I am informed that the example the hon. Member gave to the Committee included the price of land. I still maintain the position I explained to the Committee earlier, that the gap between the cost of low building and high building is not in fact increasing, so the subsidy covers a large proportion of that gap.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. The figures I gave about the particular areas related to traditional houses, to flats of a given

height and to higher flats. The whole of the figures either included costs of land or did not include it. It may well prove that the land costs per square yard for traditional houses were greater than the land costs for high-density flats. What does the hon. Gentleman mean when he says that the figures I gave included the cost of land? That does not disprove the validity of the figures.
I should remind him that I gave figures about six- eight- and twelve-storey blocks as well as traditional houses. If it applied to one, it applied to the others. One could assume that the relative costs would be the same. To make the comparison one has to include high blocks of flats on costly land and traditional houses on cheap land. If the hon. Gentleman does not mean that the figures I gave to him contained the relative cost of land for traditional housing biased in favour of high blocks of flats, what is the significance of the point he was making that they included the cost of land?

Mr. M. Stewart: I should like to rub that point in. I understood when I referred to these figures earlier that they did not include the cost of land. However, I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's correction. But it does not affect the argument in the least. We are still left with the fact that the gap between the cost of high and low building in Birmingham in 1956 was £250 and in 1960 £433. The land is there on both sides of the equation in both cases. The gap has widened and that is why there ought to be an increase in subsidy.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Hynd. I have now checked the position as I related it when I quoted information from the Town Clerk's Department in the City of Birmingham. I find that these costs are exclusive of land.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Loughlin: No, Mr. Hynd, but I believe that I am entitled to speak more than once.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(PAYMENTS FOR TOWN DEVELOPMENT.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move in page 11, line 13, at the end to insert:
Provided that any amount carried to the credit of the Housing Revenue Account of a local authority in respect of such a contribution shall be left out of account for the purposes of subsection (2) of section four of this Act.
This arises from an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) which he later withdrew in Committee but which caused us to discover an anomaly.
The anomaly is that my right hon. Friend's contribution to town development schemes under Clause 10 has to be added to twice the gross value when carrying out the Clause 4 test, and thus makes it slightly more likely that any local authority will only be entitled to the lower level subsidy. On the other hand, the contribution of an exporting authority under Clause 10 does not have to be added when carrying out the Clause 4 test. This is an anomaly which my right hon. Friend undertook to remove, and the Amendment removes the anomaly by excluding the contribution made by my right hon. Friend when considering the Clause 4 test. This Amendment, therefore, is for the benefit on the whole of all receiving authorities, and I hope the Committee will accept it.

Mr. MacColl: This is my big moment. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the purpose of this Amendment, and I am grateful to him also for assuring us that this is for the benefit of the authority. I find this rather like the Northern Rhodesian constitution. It is extremely difficult to know precisely who is gaining from what. But our intention was that this would help the authority and I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance.
There is one small point on drafting which it is almost impertinent of me to mention. There is a point about which I am not clear. If anybody is working through Clause 4, how does he know that this exemption is made in Clause 10? If I were a town clerk and started at the beginning, making calculations, I should assume that it was included. But then when I reached Clause 10 I should discover that it was pushed out, and so

I should have to start again. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will either explain the matter now or look at it later on?

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—(POWER TO REQUIRE EXECUTION OF WORKS OF OTHER DESCRIPTIONS.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move in page 16, line 14, to leave out "or".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): This and the next Amendment, in page 16, line 16, may be taken together.

Sir K. Joseph: We are now turning our attention to the house which is defective in respect of one or other of the works set out on page 16. The Royal Society of Health has suggested to my right hon. Friend that this list would be improved if it included a reference to space heating or space heating appliances. My right hon. Friend thought this was a sensible and constructive suggestion, and that is the purpose behind this Amendment. It covers both installations for space heating, that is to say, permanent fixed installations, and equipment for use with space heating appliances, which is really the electric plugs and the like so as to permit a tenant, perhaps, to bring in his own space heating appliances and find equipment ready to be attached to them. I hope that the Committee will accept both Amendments.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: These seem very sensible Amendments. Speaking for myself and, I think, for my hon. Friends, we shall be happy to accept them, in the hope that before long the Minister will return the compliment and accept one of ours.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 16, at end insert:
or installations for space heating or for the use of space heating appliances".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16.—(RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST NOTICE REQUIRING EXECUTION OF WORKS.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 17, line 8, to leave out "the last foregoing section" and to insert:
section fifteen or section (Provision of means of escape from fire) of this Act".

The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be convenient also to take with this Amendment the next four Government Amendments.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Mr. Hynd, and, with respect, I suggest that the new Clause—(Provision of means of escape from fire)—could be taken at the same time.

The Temporary Chairman: Yes.

Sir K. Joseph: This is an occasion when, I think, both sides of the Committee can take credit. My right hon. Friend had always intended that at some stage during the progress of the Bill provision would be made to ensure that local authorities had power to see that houses in multiple occupation had means for escape from fire. The same idea had occurred forcibly to the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin). I hope that the new Clause and the Amendments consequential thereon will satisfy both sides of the Committee that my right hon. Friend has carried out his pledge.
The combination of the new Clause and the consequential Amendments will enable local authorities to require the provision of such means of escape from fire as they think necessary in any house in multiple occupation which does not already possess suitable means of escape. Where a local authority is not the fire authority, the new Clause requires that local authority to consult the fire authority.
I stress that the power in the new Clause can be exercised whether or not any power is exercised by the local authority under Clause 15. The suggestion is that the new Clause should follow Clause 15, and that explains why several consequential Amendments alter the references in Clauses 16 and 17 so as to take account of both Clause 15 and the new Clause. The purpose of the consequential Amendments is to write into the new Clause or in connection

with the new Clause the powers of appeal which are appropriate to Clause 15.
Hon. Members will wish to know why my right hon. Friend did not pursue the idea of merely writing into the Bill Section 60 of the Public Health Act. That Section is limited in various ways. For instance, it cannot be invoked except where the floor of a dwelling is more than 20 ft. above the highway. The new Clause is much wider. There is no such limitation. It can be applied to make sure that there are means of escape even from a basement. That is why my right hon. Friend, after consulting his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, adopted this course.
I assure the Committee that the powers will be sufficient to enable local authorities to ensure that doors are, for instance, protected in some way if the local authority thinks that essential in order to make sure that the escape route is kept clear. It will be my right hon. Friend's intention to include in the regulations which he proposes to make under this Part of the Bill the obligation to maintain the means of escape once they are established.
I think that that is all I have to explain to the Committee. I hope that the new Clause and the consequential Amendments will be accepted.

Mr. Parkin: This is a happy occasion, since at last, after all our sittings and arguments, we are able to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for something, although, in view of the pasting which he gave me upstairs in Committee, I am not sure whether he altogether deserves it even now. I have very little to say. I should have preferred the hon. Gentleman to say a little more than he did. It seems to me that the doubts which were expressed in Committee have been very generously met. The Parliamentary Secretary has given the assurance which is implied in the Clause, namely, that this provision is not limited to houses which are already the subject of an order in any other respect. It therefore appears that, for the first time in this Bill, here is an Amendment which—

Sir K. Joseph: I would hate to mislead the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member. It is limited to a house let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family.

Mr. Parkin: Yes, but it is the first time during our proceedings on this Bill that an Amendment has been by implication accepted which is applicable to the whole of this stock of dwellings as such. It is the first time that it has been accepted by implication that all these houses, having been built for one purpose and used for another, are ipso facto misused and need modification. That is a great step forward by the Government. It seems to imply that the fire authority or the local authority which is working under the fire authority, as in the case of London, will be obliged by a sense of duty and force of public opinion if nothing else to undertake a survey of the kind that we were urging when discussing the possibility of a register of this type of house. It will not be tolerable if the rate of accidents from fire continues at the present level and it is discovered that there has been no general drive to implement this provision.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary also to confirm—I certainly would not ever again take the risk of asking the Minister to interpret his own Acts—that it is the Minister's intention that the words "means of escape from fire" should include, not only the outside fire escape staircase or the alternative of the structural alteration of the means of escape through a party wall into another house, but all the provisions of what I think is called the quarter-of-an-hour delay code which could be interpreted as a means of escape from fire in the sense that it gives people a chance to get away before a fire which cannot be controlled really gets going—in other words, that all the provisions of this code concerning partitions, self-closing doors, two-inch thick doors, and so on, could be enforced by the fire authority in any house which is in multiple occupation. If that is the intention, I at any rate welcome the new Clause and am glad to be able to congratulate the Government on having found a way out of what were supposed to be difficulties when we discussed the matter in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 17, line 16, leave out "the last foregoing section" and insert:
section fifteen of this Act".

In line 17, at end insert:
or, in the case of a notice under section (Provision of means of escape from fire) of this Act, that the notice is not justified by the terms of that section".

In page 18, line 1, after "section", insert:
against a notice served under section fifteen of this Act".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(CARRYING OUT OF WORKS BY LOCAL AUTHORITY.)

Amendment made: In page 18, line 9, leave out "or section fifteen" and insert:
section fifteen or section (Provision of means of escape from fire)".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(PROVISION OF MEANS OF ESCAPE FROM FIRE.)

(1) If it appears to a local authority that a house which, or a part of which, is let in lodgings, or which is occupied by members of more than one family, is not provided with such means of escape from fire as the local authority consider necessary, the local authority may. subject to this section, serve on any person on whom a notice may be served under section fifteen of this Act a notice specifying the works which in the opinion of the local authority are required to provide such means of escape, and requiring the person on whom the notice is served to execute those works.

(2) A local authority who are not, under the Fire Services Act, 1947, the fire authority for the area in which the house is situated, or who have, under section twelve of that Act, delegated all their functions in respect of that area to another fire authority, shall, before serving a notice under this subsection, consult with the fire authority concerned, and, in the administrative county of London, shall not serve such a notice except with the consent of the London County Council.

(3) Subsections (3) and (4) of section fifteen of this Act shall apply to a notice under this section as they apply to a notice under that section.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(APPLICATION TO CERTAIN BUILDINGS COMPRISING SEPARATE DWELLINGS.)

(1) Sections twelve to fifteen of this Act shall apply—

(a) to a building which is not a house but in which there are two or more separate dwellings which do not each have a sanitary convenience and personal washing facilities accessible only to those living in the dwelling, and


(b) to a building which is not a house but in which there are two or more separate dwellings each of which is wholly or partly let in lodgings or is occupied by members of more than one family,
as if references in those sections to a house which, or a part of which, is let in lodgings or which is occupied by members of more than one family included references to any such building, but no direction shall be given under section eighteen of this Act by virtue of this section in relation to such a building.

(2) If a local authority make an order under section twelve of this Act as applied by the foregoing subsection as respects a building at a time when another order under that section is in force as respects one of the dwellings in the building they shall revoke the last-mentioned order.

(3) References to a house in sections sixteen, seventeen and twenty of this Act shall include references to a building to which this section applies.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause arises from discussion initiated by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) and other hon. Members in Committee and I hope that it will commend itself to the hon. Member and other hon. Members, on both sides, as effectively meeting certain points that were raised. The Clause is designed to serve a twofold purpose. Subsection (1, a) brings within the scope of the provisions of the Bill dealing with multiple occupation a type of dwelling or building that was not covered in the Bill originally but which the hon. Member for Islington, South-West stressed should be included; that is to say, dwellings of a tenement type that might not necessarily be individually in multiple occupation. They might each be occupied by one family only but they share washing facilities, W.C.s., or something like that. In parts of London and elsewhere, there are a number of these old tenement buildings. They certainly seem to be of a type which the Bill should cover. Subsection (1, a) of the Clause is designed to include them.
Subsection (1, b), which deals with a different matter, is designed to make it possible for the local authority to deal as one building with a block of flats where individual flats are in multiple occupation. With the Bill as originally drafted doubt might arise whether the management provisions could be made to apply to the staircases and the common parts of a block of flats as distinct from the individual flats that were in multiple occupation. I hope that the Clause will commend itself to the Committee. It is a genuine attempt by the Government to meet points which were raised in Committee.

Mr. A. Evans: I am glad that the Government have decided to bring these buildings within the ambit of the Bill. One would have thought that the Minister would have been aware of some of these rather awkward blocks of buildings which are to be found in various parts of London and in same of the other great towns. One would have thought that he would naturally bring them within the Bill. It was, however, necessary for us on this side to point out that many of these buildings were shocking places and required to be dealt with under Part II of the Bill. We are happy that the Minister has accepted our suggestion and has now brought forward the new Clause to include them.
There are one or two points which are not clear to me which, perhaps, the Minister will consider. Subsection (1, b) refers to each dwelling
which is wholly or partly let in lodgings
To my way of reading, that means that every dwelling in the building must be wholly or partly let in lodgings before the local authority could use its powers under Part II of the Bill.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Housing Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the

provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—(Mr. R. A. Butler.]

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 156.

Division No. 225.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Aitken, W. T.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Partridge, E.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Goodhew, Victor
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Atlason, James
Gower, Raymond
Peel, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barlow, Sir John
Grant-Forris, Wg Cdr. R.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Barter, John
Green, Alan
Pott, Percivall


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gresham Cooke, R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bell, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Prior, J. M. L.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Berkeley, Humphry
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pym, Francis


Bidgood, John C.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Ramsden, James


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bishop, F. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Rees, Hugh


Black, Sir Cyril
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Renton, David


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hiley, Joseph
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hocking, Philip N.
Roots, William


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hornby, R. P.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Sharples, Richard


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Bryan, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Buck, Anthony
Iremonger, T, L,
Smithers, Peter


Builard, Denys
Jackson, John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
James, David
Speir, Rupert


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Stodart, J. A.


Cary, Sir Robert
Joseph, Sir Keith
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Channon, H. P. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Storey, Sir Samuel


Chataway, Christopher
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Cleaver, Leonard
Kershaw, Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Cole, Norman
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cooper, A. E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Temple, John M.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Leavey, J. A.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leburn, Gilmour
Thornton-Kemsley. Sir Colin


Corfield, F. V.
Litley, F. J. P.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Turner, Colin


Currie, G. B. H.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longbottom, Charles
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Loveys, Walter H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Deedes, W. F.
MacArtnur, Ian
Vickers, Miss Joan


de Ferranti, Basil
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Walder, David


du Cann, Edward
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Walker, Peter


Duncan, Sir James
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliott, R. W. (Nwostle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marten, Neil
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wise, A. R.


Fell, Anthony
Nabarro, Gerald
Woodhouse, C. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Noble, Michael
Woodnutt, Mark


Fisher, Nigel
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Woollam, John


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Worsley, Marcus


Freeth, Denzil
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Yates, William (The Wrekln)


Gammans, Lady
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



Gardner, Edward
Page, John (Harrow, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. Whitelaw.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Probert, Arthur


Ainsley, William
Hoy, James H.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Albu, Austen
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, Harry


AHaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bence, Cyril
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blyton, William
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Edward


Bowles, Frank
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Boyden, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kelley, Richard
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, dames
Kenyon, Clifford
Snow, Julian


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
King, Dr. Horace
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cronin, John
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, Thomas


Crosland, Anthony
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Grossman, R. H. S.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stonehouse, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Logan, David
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCann, John
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacColl, James
Sylvester, George


Deer, George
McInnes, James
Symonds, J. B.


Delargy, Hugh
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dodds, Norman
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Driberg, Tom
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Albert
Marquand, Rt. Hon, H. A.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Finch, Harold
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchlson, G. R.
Timmons, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Monslow, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin


Fraeer, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John
Watkins, Tudor


George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Moyle, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Ginsburg, David
Mulley, Frederick
wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold
White, Mrs. Eirene


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Wllkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Willey, Frederick


Hall, Rt. Hn, Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, John
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, w. T. (Warrington)


Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willis, E, G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Peart, Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pentland, Norman
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Popplewell, Ernest



Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T, (Westhoughton)
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and




Mr. Lawson.

HOUSING BILL

Again considered in Committee.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Evans: When I was interrupted, I was asking the Minister to look again at subsection (1) of the new Clause. My reading of it is that every one of the dwellings would have to be occupied by members of more than one family before the local authority would have power to act under Part II of the Bill. I am sure it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention that if even one or two of the flats is occupied by more than one family the local authority should be able to operate under Part II.
I see that the new Clause excludes from the operation of Clause 18 the

buildings which that Clause in fact deals. There must be some reason for that provision. We know that Clause 18 deals with overcrowding and one would have thought that overcrowding could be dealt with in these blocks of buildings in the same way as it is dealt with in tenements in normal occupation. I hope that the Minister will explain why he has made this exclusion in the new Clause.

Mr. Brooke: I think that I can satisfy the hon. Member on both his points. They are very fair questions. The first concerns the meaning of subsection (1, b). The hon. Member took it to imply that all dwellings must be in multiple occupation before the Clause would bite. I am advised that that is not the meaning of the subsection and that what it


means is that, even though there may be a dozen or more dwellings in the block, if at least two of them are in multiple occupation the Clause will bite. I think that that is what the hon. Member wishes and it is certainly what the Government wish.
The hon. Member also asked about the words
…but no direction shall he given under section eighteen of this Act by virtue of this section in relation to such a building.
That is simply to stand in the way of application of a Clause 18 direction to a block of flats or tenement dwellings as a whole. It does not debar Clause 18 from being used. It will be necessary for a Clause 18 direction to be made individually in respect of each individual dwelling. It will be appreciated that it applies to the dwelling and not to the common staircase or anything like that. There will be complete flexibility and power in Clause 18 for direction to be made in respect of overcrowding in each dwelling.

Mr. Graham Page: I am rather surprised at my right hon. Friend's interpretation of subsection (1, b). It seems to me that the interpretation is as the hon. Member for Islington, South-West

(Mr. A. Evans) explained it. The subsection reads:
…this Act shall apply—
…(b) to a building which is not a house but in which there are two or more separate dwellings each of which is wholly or partly let…
10.15 p.m.
The words "each of which" surely apply to the separate dwellings, for each of the separate dwellings must be wholly or partly let in lodgings, or occupied by members of more than one family before this Clause can bite on the whole building. Indeed, that is the way I read the Clause, and I am very surprised at my right hon. Friend's interpretation of it, as he has explained it.

Mr. A. Evans: Can the Minister give an assurance that if his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and myself are correct and his interpretation is not correct, he will have the point put right at a later stage?

Mr. Brooke: I am quite satisfied that my interpretation is correct, but I will certainly have it looked at again.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(ACQUISITION OF HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION.)

(1) A local authority shall have power to acquire any house which is let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family in order to secure in respect of the house—

(a) proper standards of management, and
(b) the limiting of the number of persons in occupation.

(2) For the purposes of this section a local authority may acquire a house by agreement or may be authorised by the Minister to purchase it compulsorily; and the Seventh Schedule to the principal Act shall apply to a compulsory purchase under this section as if it were a compulsory purchase under Part V of that Act.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
One of the difficulties of the procedure whereby we go into Committee and have a rather staccato leap through the Bill is that it is difficult for hon. Members who were not members of the Committee to understand what the Bill is about. In particular, it is extremely difficult for them to understand what this new Clause is about if they have not followed the make-up of Part II of the Bill.
Part II of the Bill deals with the problems raised by houses which are in multiple occupation; that is to say, houses which are let in lodgings, or which have members of more than one family living in them. The Bill provides broadly for two kinds of operations. The first one is the provision of certain standards of good management which are to apply to the houses to which this Bill refers. The second applies to doing work in the houses in order to make them fit for multiple occupation, and the Bill prescribes certain regulations that have to be observed and provides certain sanctions against people who do not observe them.
The main criticism that has been made about this part of the Bill is the difficulty of enforcing it efficiently, and that is a matter which will be discussed later and which has already had a good deal of discussion in the Committee. Among the suggestions which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pulliam (Mr. M. Stewart) in Committee was a proposal that the local authority should have

the power to acquire the houses and take them into ownership, or, with the approval of the Minister, acquire them compulsorily. We had a discussion on the point that we ought to be sure that this was going to be workable, and that we were tackling the problem which everybody agrees exists in these very overcrowded houses.
One sometimes finds scores of people living in the house, and sometimes almost scores of people living in single rooms. In regard to how the local authority was to tackle the problem, we suggested that there ought to be a final instrument, where the local authority was satisfied that it was not going to get proper management or the work properly done by the private owners—either because they had not got the resources or the skill and experience to do it, or because they were vicious people who were inclined to exploit the situation—the authority, whose job it is to try to put these provisions into effect, ought to be able to cut the knot, take over the houses and do the job itself.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary were not unsympathetic to that general approach to the problem, but they pointed out that in the Housing Act, 1957, there were already provisions for dealing with some of the difficulties. They said that those provisions would enable a local authority which wanted to make improvements or undertake repairs in a house to take over ownership of the house. There is thus no devastating principle involved in our argument, but the Parliamentary Secretary was very fair in telling us that that would not apply to securing proper standards of management or limiting the number of persons living in a house. He said that in those matters a local authority could work only by putting pressure on the landlord.
In some of his remarks the hon. Member made fairly clear what his approach to these problems was. He said:
In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux), the whole of Part II of the Bill is sanctioned by strong new penalties, including imprisonment for second and later offences and catching, by imprisonment, the officers of any offending company. My right bon. Friend feels that local authorities should


use these powers and that there is no need to give them, for these specific purposes, compulsory acquisition powers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 13th June, 1961; c. 1034.]
That makes it fairly clear that the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that enforcement of these standards by threats of imprisonment is the right way to carry out this operation.
I am the last person to be accused of being unduly squeamish about exerting sanctions against bad landlords, and neither I nor any of my hon. Friends would quarrel with that. But we would quarrel with the practicability of carrying on in some cases a sort of protracted warfare in which every stratagem in the game would be known to and taken by the landlords and have to be countered by the local authority, with an enormous amount of time taken in transfers of property ownership from one landlord to another, setting up bogus directors, going into liquidation at the critical moment when some order for costs is about to be enforced, and so on. Those are all the operations to be taken by bad landlords evading their responsibilities.
There are also the cases with which one could be more sympathetic and where the landlord is not vicious but where he has bitten off more than he can chew and has taken over the management of one of these properties. Sometimes he will have inherited it. When he comes to realise all the complications of such an operation and what is involved in enforcement and inspection and so on, he appreciates that that is something with which he is not equipped to deal. He may not have the money to employ an agent to do it, and he may not have the necessary skill or knowledge to do it himself.
Whichever it is, to take first the case of the vicious landlord, an enormous amount of fun can be had by ingenious landlords and by ingenious local authority committees in having this battle and in working out moves to counter each other. It is tremendous fun. I am sure that many hon. Members have taken part in the game on the side of local authorities, but it comes to one with sudden blinding intuition that this is not so much fun for the wretched tenants.
It is all very well to look on this as a war between the landlord and local authority, but the person who suffers is the unhappy tenant who occupies the awful house and, while all this laborious business is going on, suffers from dirt, squalor, neglect and all the things with which the Bill is designed to deal.
With the well-meaning but incompetent landlord, however sorry one may be for him, from the tenant's point of view it can be equally harmful. It therefore seems a sensible approach to the problem to say that just as in the case of unfit property there is power of acquisition; just as in the case of extortionate rents referred to in the right hon. Gentleman's famous circular there is power of acquisition; just as in the case of enforcing repairs there is power of acquisition; surely it is neither good sense nor good logic to carve out of this power this one little island, namely, management, and say that it is something with which the local authority cannot interfere by means of taking over this property, but can interfere only by trying to secure good management by threats, by fines, by prosecutions, by imprisonments, and so on. It may cause a great deal of business in the legal profession; it may be fun for many people, but it is extremely unpleasant for the tenant.
It has this extraordinary anomaly, which I mentioned in Committee upstairs, that the local authority can acquire the property to repair the banisters, and, having done that, it can sit pretty. It does not have to surrender it again. Having repaired the banisters the local authority can keep the ownership, manage the property and carry out the rest of the provisions of the Bill. But, if it does not need to repair the banisters, if all it has to do is to delouse the banisters, or to deal with dirt and filth which has accumulated under the staircase or in the common water closet, or keep up reasonable standards of cleanliness and management, it cannot acquire the property.
I suppose that there is a way out of this. I suppose that it is possible for the public health inspector to look hard and long at the tenant and say, "The law will not allow the council to take over this property, but I am going away now and I will come back on Monday. If,


unfortunately, on Monday one of the banister railings is missing, then 'Bob's your uncle', the Council can acquire the property and carry out the operation." This seems to be stupid. It is reducing this vitally important principle to a farce when it is necessary to go to those lengths to carry out the work.
I suggest that the sensible thing to do is to put power into the Bill to tidy up the situation; to provide that the local authority shall have power to acquire the house to secure in respect of it proper standards of management and the limiting of the number of persons in occupation. The right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman may well say that that goes very far because it deals not only with houses which are already in a bad state of management, but with houses which a local authority thinks may come into a bad state of repair. I admit that and say that I think it is necessary. I can see no reason why, if a local authority knows that the notorious Mr. X is about to acquire some property, it should not nip in first and acquire the property from under his nose in order to safeguard the tenants. I should be happy to see that happen. In an area which was known to be very overcrowded, with a great many neighbourhood tensions, there might be a house that was put up for auction. I do not see any reason why a local authority, in its wisdom, should not be able to acquire the property in that auction, at the market price, in order to be sure that it will be properly maintained and will not get into the hands of spivs, speculators and gangsters, who are such a menace in these cases.
10.30 p.m.
We suggest that the local authority should be able to acquire by agreement, and have the same power of compulsory acquisition as they have in other cases, with the approval of the Minister. There will be adequate protection; the compensation would be the same as applies in the case of compulsory purchase under Part V of the Act, which contains the main power dealing with acquiring houses for housing purposes. This is a critical test of the sincerity of the Government. If they want to prevent much hardship to tenants, both in respect of threats of physical violence and of eviction if they complain, it is essential that the local authority should have power to step in

and cut out the private landlord and take over the property, in order to secure that what we all want to see done will be done.
I very much hope that, having already told us that he accepts the principle of the Clause as it extends to repairs, the Minister will agree that that power should be further extended to cover those cases where there is a need to acquire property in order to maintain proper standards of management and to prevent overcrowding.

Sir K. Joseph: Out of the anthology of sayings of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) I can pick all the things I have to say in order to reply to his arguments. He has used all the ones that I shall rely on. He has agreed that, as was said in Committee, local authorities already have power to acquire, either by agreement or compulsion, any property which they want to improve or alter. I do not want to associate myself with the whole of the hon. Member's argument about banisters; they are very important things, and if they are defective they may make a house extremely dangerous. But it is not for me; it is for the courts to decide what entitles a local authority to use these powers—and they are very broad powers—for the purposes of altering, repairing or improving.
Local authorities have power to acquire a house by agreement or compulsion, for any of those purposes. They already have powers, under existing law, to acquire a house where they wish to provide housing accommodation. That would meet the hon. Member's example of the case of the house which is empty and is put up for auction.

Mr. MacColl: I did not say the house was empty.

Sir K. Joseph: It would meet the case of the house which had any vacant space. What the law does not allow a local authority to do at the moment is to buy a house in order to prevent or put an end to overcrowding or bad management. The hon. Member has candidly admitted that the new Clause would give a local authority power not only to buy or compulsorily acquire a house that is being badly managed or overcrowded, but a house that might one day be overcrowded or badly managed—which is a very different thing.
The hon. Member went on to explain that, even if there is a house which is complete in all the works a house should have so that the local authority does not have any excuse to go in and alter, enlarge, repair or improve it, the local authority has, under this Bill, extremely strong powers to force that landlord or owner or lessee to behave—that is to say, to put an end to overcrowding or bad management.
The hon. Gentleman then spoke of the "evil landlord", or the lazy or unskilled landlord playing what he called a "long game" with that local authority to the grave detriment, I agree, of the tenants. But we have to assume, in this set of circumstances, that the vicious, or lazy, or absentee or unskilled landlord has been so virtuous and so skilful and so attentive to his duties that the house is complete in every sort of amenity that the local authority can expect. Only in that combination of circumstances would the local authority lack the power to buy or acquire compulsorily.
As I said in Standing Committee, I think that most hon. Members will agree that we are dealing here with the 999th case out of every thousand. In every other case of this sort, the local authority will already have sufficient powers. But for the case which is the exception, whether 1 per cent. of the cases or a higher percentage, the Committee should bear in mind the very strong sanctions and penalties which this Bill imposes for the first time.
It is unfair of the hon. Member to say, "Why not complete the picture and give the local authority these powers?" As I have explained, the new Clause would give powers that are far too wide for this purpose. It would entitle the local authority to buy perfectly well managed and not overcrowded property. It is not limited to the supposition that the authority would go in and take possession of a badly managed or overcrowded house. It goes very wide. It would weaken the powers and penalties in the Bill if it were held in such low regard that the Minister were asked to make them relatively unnecessary all at once, without even trying them out, and giving the local authorities power to acquire compulsorily or by agreement the

very houses for which sanctions are designed.
My right hon. Friend is most anxious that these cases shall be properly dealt with by the local authorities. I remind the Committee that the local authorities have power in every case already where there is any deficiency of works. They have power to acquire property in order to provide housing accommodation, and for the very rare case where the house is already fully complete in its amenities but there is current or prospective bad management or overcrowding, they also have fully adequate powers under the Bill, and these should be properly tried. I hope that the Committee will not accept this new Clause.

Mr. Parkin: I had the feeling that we should not reach the end of these proceedings without one of the Ministers saying that it was for the courts to decide. It is not for the courts to decide. It is for the Minister to decide whether he is to endorse a proposal for compulsory acquisition of a house. That is why we on this side of the Committee have grave doubts. We are not just having a dig at the present Minister, because any Minister could be advised that the proposal of the local authority did not fall within the powers it had at its disposal.
I have had some unhappy experiences of interpretation of the law. My first experience came when I had been Member for Paddington, North for only a few weeks and was seeking information about the problem of fag-ends of leases in this sort of house in Paddington. I wrote to the then Minister of Housing and Local Government—the present Prime Minister—and received a reply—it was autographed and I treasure it—assuring me that the provisions of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, which was then passing through Parliament, would give local authorities ample powers to acquire and manage these houses. We know now that this was just not the case.
When I was referring to the misuse of houses for an entirely different purpose, the present Minister gave an answer to a Question that it was not in his power to grant a compulsory purchase order to a local authority on the grounds that the house was being misused—in that case being misused for the purpose of prostitution—and that it would be necessary


for the authority to demonstrate that it needed the house to satisfy the housing needs of its own rehousing programme, and therefore the local authority must put up a comprehensive plan.
There have been arguments in Paddington about whether certain people should be rehoused from houses demolished for slum clearance, and the arguments were based on the suggestion that this operation did not form part of a comprehensive plan. We have good grounds to be worried about this. During the Committee stage discussions the Parliamentary Secretary gave all these assurances about existing powers. He quoted the 1957 consolidating Act. The appropriate Sections of that Act relate to the provision of houses, and the provision of accommodation. The object of those powers was to enable the local authorities to provide housing accommodation for those on their waiting lists.
This is an entirely different proposition. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will know that I had an unfortunate experience in this regard through a housing association where, with the best intentions in the world, and with the best will of the people concerned, the officials of the local authority advised the appropriate committee that it had no power to make an advance to the housing association to acquire certain houses of this character because the result would not be the creation of fresh dwelling accommodation.
The powers given to a housing association are the echo, the exact repeat, of the powers given to the local authorities. So these powers in the 1957 Act which the Minister quotes have already been quoted against the acquisition. Because—surely the Minister must recognise this—he has said that this is the first Measure that we have had dealing with this matter, and that he wishes to go down in history as the Minister who introduced this major housing reform, he cannot say that it has been referred to in previous Acts, because it has not. The objective is not to create more housing accommodation. In fact, the result of most of PartII of this Bill would be, at the very best—the very best that we could hope for—to maintain the present housing accommodation. Therefore, for the removal of any doubt, the Minister ought

to be prepared to insert in the Clause that all the powers of the 1957 Act for the acquisition of houses should be available to the local authorities.
The nub of the difference between us remains as always. What is the Minister trying to do by this Bill? Is he trying to get rid of future shysters and speculators and bad landlords because they bring disrepute on the political system which he upholds? Or is he saying to the local authorities that these houses, which have been misused almost from the day that they were built, now because of a change in the social needs of the city need to be rescued, improved and maintained for approximately the same type of tenant who has been occupying them for the last fifty years?
10.45 p.m.
That is the proposition, that these are the sort of dwellings available for lower-paid workers which will be used by them for another generation or so, however good the rebuilding programme is, because of the consistent demand for accommodation. This stock of houses ought not to be eroded either at one end by crooked landlords or at the other end by what amounts to a virtual change of user of another type of flat. If we are to charge local authorities with the stewardship of this type of housing, which must form part of the balance of housing accommodation in these overcrowded areas, we must give them full power and the ultimate sanction that they can go to the Minister to ask for compulsory purchase powers on the ground that the housing accommodation is being eroded in one way or another. If we look at the Bill in that constructive way we find that it is inadequate to say that there are other ways of doing this.
The replies have varied a little—indeed, in the last two sittings of the Standing Committee they varied a little between morning and afternoon. I do not think the Minister has any firm view on this. I think he is half convinced and may still feel that at a later stage he can provide that these powers can be used for this purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux (Nottingham, Central): The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) put forward a new Clause similar to this in Standing Committee and withdrew it


after I had made what I hoped was a very spirited speech in its favour. I was therefore very surprised to find a Clause in almost exactly the same words put forward tonight. Nevertheless, here it is again, and I should like to say a few words in support of it.
The reason why I feel that there is a considerable amount of value in this new Clause is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was against it. It is because it allows the acquisition, compulsorily if necessary, by a local authority of houses let in multiple occupation but not in fact at the time mismanaged, or indeed overcrowded, I believe that to be a very useful provision for a local authority. These type of houses are owned, at any rate in Nottingham, very largely by a comparatively small number of people. We know exactly what they are going to do with any new house they manage to acquire, that is to say, any house of a type that can be let off in multiple occupation. They are going to turn it into the same multi-occupation slum as those they have already treated in that way.
These people are simply not fit to be allowed to take over any more houses and exploit the tenants in the way they have already done and to ruin any more houses. A very good comparison to consider is the case of a person found guilty of ill-treating a dog. Probably the dog would be taken away from him and that person not be allowed Ito keep a dog again. The type of landlord aimed at in Part II of the Bill who has been convicted of an offence—that is to say, has had an order served on him—should not be allowed to take over another house. I very much wish that I had tabled a new Clause to the effect that anyone convicted under Clause 13 (1) or under Section 90 of the principal Act should not be allowed to let any further accommodation he had taken over after he had had such an order served on him. I think I was deterred from doing that because I felt that if I put down any more new Clauses during the Committee stage I would not be particularly popular. Nevertheless, if that cannot be done I believe the next best thing is that houses taken over by people of that sort, whose record is known, can be compulsorily acquired by the local autho-

rity at the first possible moment, before the house gets into the state which we know it will if the landlord is given half a chance.
This racket has reached such a state in Nottingham that really good-class houses are being taken over for it—houses that we simply cannot afford to become slums. Failing the power to prevent these people actually buying any more houses and letting them, if we were to give local authorities the power of early compulsory purchase in the case of landlords who are known to be of that type—and the local authorities would not seek permission from the Minister to take such power except in the case of landlords of that sort—I believe that would go a long way towards preventing the further formation of these multi-occupation slums. I therefore think that this Clause would be really useful.

Mr. M. Stewart: I feel that I must reply to the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux). It is quite true that my hon. Friends and I put down in Committee a Clause very similar to this. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman's recollection is a little at fault. I did not withdraw it immediately after his very spirited speech in favour of it. I withdrew it almost immediately after what I presume must have been an exceptionally persuasive speech by the Parliamentary Secretary, and it was a speech that must have persuaded not only my hon. Friends but the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, because he will remember that he raised no objection to the Clause being withdrawn.
Why were we all deceived on this side of the Committee, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman? The answer can be found if we look at the difference between the Clause debated in Committee and the Clause which is now proposed. The Clause which we discussed in Committee gave the local authority power to acquire the house either for the purposes set out in this new Clause or for the purpose of repairing defects. We were told with great weight and authority by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee that local authorities already have the power to acquire a house in order to remedy defects. He assured us that they had that power under, first of


all, Section 96 (b) of the relevant Act, and then we pointed out that that had not anything to do with it. He then shifted to Section 92 (d), and that was not entirely convincing either for the reasons pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin). We were then shunted back to Section 92 (b), and I am not at all happy about that.
We were repeatedly assured that that part of our Clause was totally unnecessary. We therefore, on reflection, decided that the Clause having been battered down for that reason, we would remove that apparent fault in it and get an exact decision on the matter: can or ought a local authority to be able to take over a house in which one cannot point to a specific physical defect but which the authority ought to be able to take over in order to preserve or secure proper standards of management or prevent it from being overcrowded? First, can local authorities do that today? I think it is now admitted that they cannot. The Parliamentary Secretary argued that one could hardly find a house that suffered or might suffer from bad management or overcrowding in which there would not also be physical defects. Has he considered the possibility that there may be no physical defects in it because the tenants have been patiently doing the repairs themselves for a considerable time? That could very well occur, and it might be highly desirable in the public interest that the house should be taken out of the hands of its neglectful landlord and brought into public ownership, so that then the tenants could have a fair deal. It is clear that local authorities have not the power which the new Clause would give them.
According to the Parliamentary Secretary's argument, it is only in one case in a thousand that the Clause would operate. In that case, for goodness' sake, what is the objection to it?

Sir K. Joseph: Because the Clause is drawn at the moment to cover houses which are well managed and not overcrowded.

Mr. Stewart: But a local authority could acquire them only in order to secure proper standards of management or to prevent overcrowding. Surely, the

Parliamentary Secretary will not argue that if, under the Clause, a local authority attempted to acquire a house in regard to which it could not be said that there was any reasonable prospect of its being overcrowded or ill managed, the courts would uphold that action for a moment or that the Minister would? If an authority tried to acquire a house like that by compulsory purchase, the Minister would turn it down, and, even if the Minister consented, an attempt to use its powers in a way so obviously outside the terms of the Statute could be challenged in the courts.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this could apply only in a very limited number of cases where there are not actual physical defects in the house but where there is good reason to believe that the house is or is just about to be grossly mismanaged or overcrowded. I accept entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said. If it is known that a house is coming into the hands of some person or group of persons chronically addicted to this racket of mismanaging property, the local authority ought to be able to step in and take it over.
The other leg of the Government's argument is that they have armed local authorities with many other powers to deal with these matters and, therefore, it is not necessary to arm them with this power. The Parliamentary Secretary apparently thought that, if a local authority were given this power of acquisition, it would in all cases rush to it without having thought of using any of the other powers the Bill gives. This is now the second or third time today that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister has produced an argument resting on the assumption that most local authorities do their work in a lazy or almost half-witted manner. They do not. We know very well that the Bill gives local authorities several powers for dealing with mismanaged houses. A reasonable assumption, from what one knows of local authorities, is that they will set to work to use those powers and that only where they are faced with someone who is particularly ingenious and who can employ the law's delays against them will they want in the end to say, "Very well. We must go back to our final sanction. We shall bring the house into public ownership".
During our discussions in Committee, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) reproached us for not having put down a Clause of this kind, having failed to notice that we had in fact done so. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member did not support us when the debate on the Clause came.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member is wrong. I made some very sympathetic noises during the debate on it. In fact, I called my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that I thought he was wrong in thinking that local authorities had this power.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Stewart: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It was on another Clause that he disappointed us, if I may say so. We shall hope for both sympathetic noises and sympathetic action on this occasion.
What it comes to is that local authorities have not the specific power that the new Clause would give them. The suggestion that it would provide them with extravagant powers to acquire any bit of property they took a fancy to is ruled out both by the words of the Clause itself and by the fact that it could not operate without the consent of the Minister.
The suggestion that the Clause is unnecessary because there are other ways in which they could deal with the matter

falls down for two reasons. First, that local authorities will want to start upon the problem by using the other powers given in the Bill. They will not make a mad rush for this, without regard to the other things they can do, but they will find that their power to get a bad landlord to accept their other powers to require compliance with the law will be very much greater if both parties know that in the last resort there is this power of acquisition. That is what we are arguing about in this Bill.

I would add one further point. I am still not fully convinced that a local authority can take over a house, even if there are defects in it, if it cannot be shown that by so doing it would provide fresh housing accommodation. It is very difficult to read either Section 96 or Section 92 of the principal Act except in that sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) pointed out, and if I am right on that, that is an additional reason for passing this new Clause, but even if I am wrong on that, the other contentions I have been advancing I believe stand, and I think it will be with the sympathy of a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite that we ask the Committee to add this new Clause to the Bill.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 113, Noes 170.

Division No. 226.]
AYES
[11.2 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Greenwood, Anthony
McCann, John


Albu, Austen
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)
MacColl, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Mendelson, J. J.


Blyton, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mitchison, G. R.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Morris, John


Bowles, Frank
Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold


Brockway, A. Fenner
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, A. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hoy, James H.
Parker, John


Callaghan, James
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parkin, B. T.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cliffe, Michael
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Frederick


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pentland, Norman


Crosland, Anthony
Jeger, George
Popplewell, Ernest


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewlsham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Redhead, E. C.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Deer, George
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Dodds, Norman
King, Dr. Horace
Ross, William


Driberg, Tom
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Albert
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Logan, David
Snow, Julian


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Loughlin, Charles
Sorensen, R. W.




Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Whitlock, William


Steele, Thomas
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wigg, George


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Stonehouse, John
Thornton, Ernest
Willey, Frederick


Stones, William
Thorpe, Jeremy
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wainwright, Edwin
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Swain, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor



Sylvester, George
Weitzman, David



Symonds, J. B.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. Irving and Mr. Short.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Green, Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Peel, John


Aliason, James
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pervical, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barter, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pott, Percivall


Bidgood, John G.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bishop, F. P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Black, Sir Cyril
Hlley, Joseph
Pym, Francis


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, James


Box, Donald
Hocking, Philip N.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Holland, Philip
Rees, Hugh


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornby, R. P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Braine, Bernard
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Brewis, John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Jackson, John
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Shaw, M.


Bullard, Denys
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smith, Dudtey(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chlswick)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Smithers, Peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cleaver, Leonard
Langford-Holt, J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cooper, A. E.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lilley, F. J. P.
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Cordle, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tapsell, Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Curren, Charles
Longbottom, Charles
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loveys, Walter H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
McLaren, Martin
Turner, Coiln


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. M.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


du Cann, Edward
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Duncan, Sir James
Maddan, Martin
Walder, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walker, Peter


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, William


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Freeth, Denzil
Nabarro, Gerald
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gammans, Lady
Noble, Michael
Woodnutt, Mark


Glover, Sir Douglas
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woollam, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Worsley, Marcus


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, West)



Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Mr. Finlay and


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Partridge, E.
Mr. Chichester-Clark,

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 1.—(DWELLINGS QUALIFYING FOR SUBSIDIES.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after "association", to insert:
not being an association to which the next following subsection applies".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): It may be convenient also to discuss the Amendments in page 2, line 13, at end insert:
(2) No subsidies shall be payable to a housing association the funds of which are wholly or mainly provided by an employer for the purpose of providing accommodation for his employees.


and in page 7, line 32 [Clause 7], after "association", insert:
not being an association to which subsection (2) of section one of this Act applies".

Mr. MacColl: The point of the Amendments is simple and short. Clause 1 deals with the Minister's power to make advances to housing associations. There are varying types of housing associations, and one is the industrial association, which is formed by a company or firm in order to provide houses for its employees, normally with some kind of tied houses. I am in no way quarrelling with the worthy purposes of housing associations and what from their point of view is valuable work, but we said in Committee that we did not think that this was a channel into which public money ought to flow. We said that it was a commercial operation which employers did for their own benefit. I am happy to say, at a quarter past eleven, that that was probably the first issue on which the Government and the Opposition were in entire agreement.
The Parliamentary Secretary said:
My right hon. Friend has assured the Committee that Clause 7 schemes are not intended to benefit industrial housing associations. If industrial housing associations or anything based on them are in hon. Gentlemen's minds, I will repeat that Clause 7 schemes are not intended to benefit industrial housing associations."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee D, 9th May. 1961; c. 581.]
Accepting that, we have proposed that the law should be what the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have said it ought to be.
The present loose drafting is unfair to people who turn up Acts of Parliament to find out what are the powers given for the expenditure of public money by an enabling Act, which is what this is, when, in the course of a debate in Committee the Minister lets loose the remark that it is not intended that the Minister should use his powers in this direction. That has no legal authority and puts subsequent Ministers in an awkward position.
11.15 p.m.
How does the Minister get out of an undertaking of that sort? He cannot amend the law, and there is no question of making a Statutory Order; it is, in fact, a purely administrative action, and a subsequent Minister who may think

that he has these powers would be in a difficult position because of something which a predecessor might have said when the Bill was going through Parliament. Furthermore, it is unfair to the industrial organisations to find that there is power to get grants, and then, when they go to the Minister, to be told that he does not intend to use the powers. After all, we are supposed to be the guardians of public expenditure, and this is a very reasonable request. We do not want the Minister to have unnecessary powers, and we simply ask that the Bill shall conform with the undertaking which was given by the right hon. Gentleman and supported by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary
All of these Amendments are directed to keeping out of the ambit of the grants, the industrial housing associations which have tied houses

Sir B. Janner: I hope that the Minister will accede to the very moderate request which has been made, especially since we on this side of the House, and, I think, a number of hon. Members on the other side, have emphasised on numerous occasions the great importance of seeing to it that tied houses should not continue in consequence of the associations being set up and that they are not desirable things at all. When it comes to a matter of ascertaining if accommodation is available, it is a hard thing for a person who has a tied house to move to other accommodation. In view of that, it is important that if such houses are erected from which people can be ejected because they are no longer in a particular employment, public money should not be used to subsidise that kind of dwelling.
In view of the undertaking given, it should be specifically stated that this type of association should definitely not be entitled to the grant.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not want, in replying to this group of Amendments, to give a false importance to industrial housing associations and the possibility that they might get a subsidy. At the same time, I must explain in all honesty that there could be circumstances under which they might be entitled to it. [Interruption.] Oh, yes; I am trying to explain.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman said "subsidies". I think that we are dealing with loans.

Sir K. Joseph: As I understand it, we are dealing with the subsidy under Clause 2. If the hon. Member is under the impression that we are talking about loans, perhaps he will withdraw this.

Mr. MacColl: I must admit that I became a little confused between the Committee and the House; we are not now in Committee. I think that we are now back in square one.

Sir K. Joseph: There is no question of an industrial housing association being entitled to a loan under Clause 7. My right hon. Friend has already spoken about that point during the Committee stage upstairs. Subsidies fall into two different categories and, as I have just said, as I understand it, it is that with which we are concerned here. They are those for housing associations under authorised arrangements, and the subsidy under special arrangements.
A subsidy under authorised arrangements is by hypothesis a subsidy for a housing scheme which is approved by the local authority as well as by my right hon. Friend. If it occurred that a local authority wanted to make an agreement with an industrial housing association and put up a scheme to my right hon. Friend which it had approved, it would then be open to my right hon. Friend to approve that scheme, in which case the local authority would draw the subsidy and would pass it on, as it always does under authorised arrangements, to the industrial housing association.
I will give the most likely example of that situation. If hon. Members look at Clause 3 (2, a), they will be reminded of the subsidy which is available for the urgent needs of industry—that is both public and private enterprise industry. It could well be that the subsidy that could be drawn under Clause 3 (2, a) might be evoked by a firm's industrial housing association, in which case authorised arrangements with the local authority might be the most suitable arrangement, and a subsidy under Clause 1 (1, d) could be accepted as suitable.
That is one example where an industrial housing association might be entitled

—and I think the House would recognise that it might be entitled—to draw a subsidy.
To be scrupulously and pedantically honest, it is proper to remind the House that my right hon. Friend is taking power under this part of the Bill, in the extremely rare case of a local authority going right against public opinion and refusing to co-operate with a beneficial scheme of a housing association, to make a special arrangement. But, as was explained in Committee upstairs, this was a most unlikely and rare contingency. I cannot think of an example now, but there might be a situation in which my right hon. Friend might use the special arrangement procedure, and it might be that that particular housing project was to meet the urgent demands of industry, and it might be that the industry concerned—the National Coal Board with its housing association, or private industry with its private housing association—was operating through an industrial housing association. I think that I am being pedantic about this. It is a conceivably possible situation, but a very unlikely one.
There are therefore those reasons for not removing the discretion in the Bill. I do not want to exaggerate this, but it is a possibility that under certain circumstances such as I have explained an industrial housing association might conceivably be entitled to a subsidy. I hope that with that explanation these Amendments will not be pressed.

Mr. J. Silverman: This is a matter of principle. Under the guise of a housing association an organisation may be constituted purely for carrying on the business of a commercial firm. A firm which builds or buys these houses to let does so primarily—and as far as it is concerned entirely—with the object of attracting a labour force and keeping it. It is a purely commercial transaction carried out by the firm, and as a matter of principle it is wrong that this should be done with public money. That is so whether the local authority agrees or not. There are all kinds of local authorities. Some may, for various reasons, desire to co-operate with commercial firms.
Even if it is for the benefit of an industry, the same considerations apply.
Here is something which is done primarily for profit. It may be done under the guise of a benevolent association, but it is essentially a commercial transaction, and it is wrong in principle that these people should be allowed to have a loan or a subsidy in any circumstances.

I suggest that these Amendments should be embodied in the Bill and that this should not be left to the discretion of local authorities or to anybody else.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 86; Noes 150.

Division No. 227.]
AYES
[11.25 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Redhead, E. C.


Albu, Austen
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hoy, James H.
Rogers, G. H. R (Kensington, N.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ross, William


Bacon, Miss Alice
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Blyton, William
Jeger, George
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Bowles, Frank
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Kelley, Richard
Steele, Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
King, Dr. Horace
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Lawson, George
Stonshouse, John


Cliffe, Michael
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Symonds, J. B.


Crosland, Anthony
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Logan, David
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacColl, James
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Delargy, Hugh
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Watkins, Tudor


Dodds, Norman
Mendelson, J. J.
Weitzman, David


Driberg, Tom
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Neal, Harold
White, Mrs. Eirene


Evans, Albert
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Eric
Oram, A. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Parker, John
Willey, Frederick


Hannan, William
Parkin, B. T.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick



Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Pentland, Norman



Herbison, Miss Margaret
Prentice, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Irving and Mr. Short.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jackson, John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Allason, James
du Cann, Edward
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Barter, John
Duncan, Sir James
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Joseph, Sir Keith


Berkeley, Humphry
Emery, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Bidgood, John C.
Errington, Sir Eric
Langford-Holt, J.


Biggs-Davison, John
Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bishop, F. P.
Finlay, Graeme
Litchfield, Capt. John


Black, Sir Cyril
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longbottom, Charles


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert


Box, Donald
Freeth, Denzil
Loveys, Walter H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boyle, Sir Edward
Glover, Sir Douglas
McLaren, Martin


Braine, Bernard
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Brewis, John
Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil


Buck, Antony
Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray


Bullard, Denys
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mills, Stratton


Channon, H. P. G.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Chataway, Christopher
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nabarro, Gerald


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Michael


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hocking, Philip N.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Corfield, F. V.
Holland, Philip
Partridge, E.


Curran, Charles
Hornby, R. P.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Currie, G. B. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Peel, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hughes-Young, Michael
Percival, Ian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Deedes, W. F.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pitt, Miss Edith




Pott, Percivall
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wall, Patrick


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smithers, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Prior, J. M. L.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Whitelaw, William


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Storey, Sir Samuel
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pym, Francis
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Redmayne, Rt. Hon, Martin
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Woodnutt, Mark


Rees, Hugh
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Woollam, John


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Worsley, Marcus


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)



Roots, William
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)



Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Turner, Colin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sharples, Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Shaw, M.
Walder, David
Mr. J. E. B. Hill.


Shepherd, William
Walker, Peter

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at end to insert:
Provided that, on any occasion on which the Minister withholds his approval he shall state, in writing, to the local authority, development corporation, or housing association as the case may be, his reasons for so doing.
There was a punctiliously polite Greek who, at the funeral of his small daughter, felt obliged to apologise to the assembly for bringing it so ridiculously small a corpse for its attention. I feel rather the same about this Amendment. This is not only the most modest Amendment we have proposed, but almost one of the most modest one could conceive to a Bill.
The Government are aware of our motive. It is quite a reasonable one. In the White Paper that preceded this Bill it was made clear that, although there was to be some redistribution of subsidies, it was not expected that the total of the nation's expenditure on housing subsidies would be increased by the Bill. Yet, despite that limitation, we were told much about the help to be given to certain local authorities. The problem was, therefore, how were certain local authorities to be helped if the total expenditure had to remain the same? The answer could only be by a restriction on other authorities.
One of the instruments which the White Paper indicated that the Government would use to that end was a rather more stringent use of the Minister's power of disapproval of a housing project of a local authority than we have experienced hitherto. Of course, if the Minister disapproves a project, no subsidy is payable. This power has been in earlier Housing Acts, but in the White Paper, as I say, we were given to understand that it might be used more stringently in the future. We felt that if that were to be done—it is a rather serious depar-

ture from previous housing policy—the nation ought to be entitled to know on what principles that Minister was acting in withholding or granting approval. Therefore, during the Committee stage proceedings we moved an Amendment that the Minister should make quarterly returns to Parliament of the occasions on which he had refused to approve and his reasons for doing so.

It seemed to us then, and it seems now, quite a reasonable proposition. But the Government turned it down. All we are asking now is that when the Minister withholds approval, he shall tell the person affected—local authority, development corporation, or housing association, as the case may be—in writing why he has done so. We think that this will be a reasonable guide to authorities in the future. They will get a good idea from successive statements of the principles guiding the Minister's actions, and I think that it will be a salutary self-discipline for the Minister. He will have to reflect that if he is considering withholding approval he must be prepared to state in a document—which may later be quoted—why he has done so. It would be a check against unreasonable and arbitrary action.

It is common form in the progress of a Bill to say that nobody suspects the present Minister of being liable to engage in arbitrary action. One always says that of the present Minister on any Bill, whatever the Bill may be about, or whoever may be the Minister, and however improbable the proposition may seem in view of what one knows about the Minister. I say it just to comply with precedent.

I add, of course, that we do not know who may be the Minister in the future and it is not desirable that this power of disapproval—which we have been given to understand is likely to be used more


stringently in the future—should be used without any check or without the local authorities and the nation being able to form some opinion of the principles guiding the Minister. I do not believe that the Minister, or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, can pretend that this Amendment is administratively unworkable, or that it would put an intolerable burden on the Minister, or that it means something quite different from what any reasonable person would suppose it to mean. There is no reason why it should not be accepted.

Mr. Brooke: The very affecting story from the Greek implied to my mind that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was not giving his Amendment a very long expectation of life. He moved it most persuasively, and at one time I even thought he was going out of his way to be polite to me, until he inserted those damning words, "whoever the Minister is", implying that his politeness was not directed to me exclusively but was part of the general exchange of the courtesies of Parliament as a whole.
This is an Amendment which comes nearer the mark than the one moved in Committee, but it still misses the target because, as I sought to explain in Committee, the normal stage at which approval would be withheld would not be at the stage of deciding whether subsidy would be payable or not, but at the stage of deciding whether loan sanction would be granted or not. At that stage, which is the critical stage, this Amendment would not bite at all. It would bite only in the rare case where the Minister had agreed to give loan sanction to the erection of a house but subsequently intimated to the local authority that he would not approve it for the purposes of subsidy.
There are certain types of case where that would happen. It would happen when a housing association was building with the help of a loan under Clause 7 for some purpose other than housing old people, but there would be no need there for the Minister to give his reasons in writing because the housing association would know from all that had been said about the scheme that it would not be able to obtain subsidy for that purpose. I suppose there are very rare cases where a local authority

might have succeeded in obtaining a loan sanction to build houses for some people avowedly not in need of financial assistance and there would not be need for subsidy, but there again there would not be any reason why the Minister should be put under statutory obligation to put his reasons in writing.
On that account I must advise the House that it would not be an advantage to the Bill if these words were written into it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7.—(ADVANCES TO HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS PROVIDING HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR LETTING.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 8, line 2, to leave out from "advances" to the second "shall" and to insert—

(a) shall carry interest at the rate fixed by the Treasury under section one of the Public Works Loans Act, 1897, in respect of loans to local authorities made on the same date and for the same period, and
(b).
This Amendment arises out of a discussion we had in Committee upstairs and goes somewhat further than the proposal I made in Committee. I hope that for that reason it will not receive any less support from the right hon. Gentleman. The object is that where the money is advanced to housing associations the rate of interest shall be that which applies to loans from the Public Works Loan Board and shall not be less. In some expectation that this Amendment will not be trampled on with the usual ruthlessness the Minister has shown, I put it before the House.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend thinks this Amendment clarifies his intention and is, in fact, an improvement on the Bill as originally drafted. He hopes that the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(POWER TO APPLY MANAGEMENT CODE TO HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION.)

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 11, line 45, to leave out from "in" to "that" in line 4 on page 12 and to insert:
an unsatisfactory state in consequence of failure to maintain proper standards of management and, accordingly, that it is necessary".

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be convenient also to discuss the two following Amendments.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With the two associated Amendments, this Amendment would make an improvement and, I think, a valuable change in the wording of Clause 12. We had a useful debate on this in Committee. In the light of that debate, I expressed my dissatisfaction with the wording of the Clause as it stood and promised that I would move an Amendment on Report to seek to improve it.
11.45 p.m.
In the Bill as originally drafted the main emphasis of this subsection (1) was on the question whether, because of some failure of management, the house in its existing state was unsuitable for the number of households or individuals in it. What follows from that is that to prove a need for a management order it would always be necessary far the local authority to establish some relationship between the squalid living conditions in the house and the number of families or households occupying it.
In these Amendments, if the House will accept them, we shall be adopting a rather different approach. These Amendments, as the House will observe, drop any mention of the suitability of the house for occupation by the number of households or individuals in it. A test of that kind, in fact, could not always be entirely relevant, and horribly squalid living conditions may well exist in a house in multiple occupation even though the house is not numerically overcrowded.
I hope that hon. Members, looking at the alterations which these three Amendments will make if they are adopted, will appreciate that the Government have sought to meet the criticism that was presented in Committee and are seeking now to provide that the test will be the simple one whether the house is in such a bad state because of a failure of management that the regulations made under Clause 13 should be applied to it. The condition of the house remains the determining factor but the number of families or individuals is now no longer relevant.

Mr. MacColl: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is certainly improving

the Bill by this proposal. It is only fair to say that the original criticism, although the voice was mine, came in fact from the Association of Public Health Inspectors who had felt some uncertainty about the existing wording of the Bill, and it was only right that tribute should be paid to them for their help in this matter.
I said in Committee that I was not wedded to the form of words which I suggested, nor did I claim authorship of the Amendment. I now thank the right hon. Gentleman for having made this proposal, which I am sure will clarify the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 6, leave out "shall" and insert "should".

In line 6, after "house", insert:
the local authority may by order direct that those regulations shall so apply".—[Mr. Brooke.]

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 13, line 1, to leave out "twenty-eight" and to insert "thirty-five".
Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to take with this Amendment the Amendment in Clause 18, page 21, line 2, which is in identical terms?

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases. I had not appreciated the significance. I thought they were the same principle but different points.

Sir K. Joseph: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These two Amendments deal with the case where an applicant seeks the revocation of a management order in the case of Clause 12, or a direction about the number of occupants in a house in the case of Clause 18. In both these Clauses the local authority is given 28 days to deal with the application for revocation, and if no decision has been made at the end of the 28 days by the local authority the applicant has the right of appeal to the magistrates' court in the first case and to the county court in the case of Clause 18.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lt.-Colonel Cordeaux) represented in Committee that 28 days was a bit short because some local authorities meet only once a month. Although my right


hon. Friend is anxious that applicants should not have to wait unduly long for a decision on the important matter of a revocation order, he thinks that 28 days is a trifle short. The Amendment is proposed to increase the time which a local authority will have before coming to a decision from 28 days to 35 days. I hope that both Amendments will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(REGULATIONS PRESCRIBING MANAGEMENT CODE.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 13, line 21, to leave out
and, in particular, that he ensures
and to insert:
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, regulations under this section may, in particular, require the person managing the house to ensure

Mr. Speaker: I think it is convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 13, line 29.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
In Committee we became involved in a little semantic confusion about the exact effect of the words "in particular" in line 21. Several hon. Members feared that these would limit the application of the regulations to be made under Clause 13. My right hon. Friend undertook to look into the matter.
As the House realises, my right hon. Friend now proposed to enlarge these words, as in the Amendment, to make it abundantly plain that the examples (a) to (e) and the additional example at the end of the subsection relating to the satisfactory disposal of refuse and litter are instances only and do not in any way limit or restrict the generality of the Clause. The Amendment should clarify the position entirely.
My right hon. Friend is advised that the words he proposes to insert are a great deal more effective to achieve their purpose than a proposal which I know the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) had in mind, but which does not now appear on the Notice Paper. I hope the House will accept this clarifying Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart: We agree that these are useful Amendments and are grateful to the Government for introducing them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 29, leave out "that he makes" and insert "to make".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 14, line 19, to leave out "knowingly" and to insert "wilfully".

Mr. Speaker: I think it is convenient also to discuss the hon. Member's Amendment in page 14, line 29.

Mr. Page: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
Subsection (4) creates the offence of contravening or failing to comply with the regulations which can be made under Clauses 12 and 13. In order to decide what the offence may be, one refers back to the beginning of Clause 13 and finds that the purpose of the regulations is to impose proper standards of management on the person who manages a house. That person may very well be anxious to do all the things which the regulations require of him, but, as subsection (4) now stands, he might be committing an offence even if the difficulties in carrying out the regulations were insurmountable. It would be no defence to him that he was unable to carry out the regulations however much he wished to do so.
Looking further on in Clause 13, we see that the person managing the house who is to be bound to carry out those duties under the regulations may be the owner or lessee of the house if he collects the rents. That may cover a wide range of persons in connection with the house who have to carry out the duties under the regulations. Again, they may be anxious to do so, but may be unable in certain circumstances to do so. Further in the Clause, in subsection (3), are the regulation making powers. That is the subsection under which the regulations can be made, and under paragraph (c) the regulations
may impose duties on persons who have an estate or interest in, or who live in, a house".
We do not know till those regulations are made what sort of duties are to be imposed, or how easy or difficult it will be for persons on whom those duties are imposed to carry them out, but if those


persons on whom duties are imposed knowingly contravene or fail to comply with the regulations, they will be committing an offence.
My first Amendment is to substitute the word "wilfully" for the word "knowingly" to indicate that a person commits an offence only if he deliberately fails to carry out the regulations but does not commit an offence if he is unable to carry out the regulations although knowing what the regulations are and knowing that the regulations are not being carried out. There will undoubtedly be cases in which the lessor is unable at once to get possession of the premises; there will be cases, even, in which the manager of a house may be unable to carry out at once the duties under the regulations, such as, for example, to quote Clause 13 (1, a), keeping in repair
all means of water supply and drainage in the house".
He may be anxious to do so, but one can imagine all sorts of difficulties which may arise in his carrying out those duties; and yet, under subsection (4), if he knows that the regulations are being contravened, however impossible it is for him to put them right, he is committing an offence under the Clause.
Surely, we should not create an offence of that sort. The offence should be created only if the person wilfully is not complying with the regulations. My right hon. Friend in Committee, in justifying the word "knowingly" in the subsection, said:
It will make it that much harder for a local authority to win a case if it has to prove that a man has wilfully contravened the regulations.
Surely, that is not the principle on which an offence should be created—that it will be harder to prove the offence if one word is used instead of the other. My right hon. Friend went on:
I should have thought that where it was clear to everyone that contravention was unavoidable because something had happened to prevent a man from doing what he was required to do by the regulations, it would be a very foolish local authority which brought proceedings against him."—[OFFICIAAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 6th June, 1961; c. 846.]
But surely, again, we ought not to create an offence in that way, that although, as is admitted in that quotation from

my right hon. Friend's speech, contravention was unavoidable, we rely on the local authority not being foolish enough to take proceedings. Or, as appears later from what my right hon. Friend said a person under those circumstances might be convicted but
…there would be very little chance of a court imposing a penalty on him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 6th June, 1961; c. 846.]
Again, surely, we ought not to allow a conviction of that sort. The word "wilfully" would solve all these problems and would catch the real offender without putting the person who is unable to carry out his duties in jeopardy and liable to be convicted.
12 m.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) used the phrase "the virtuous lessor" in Committee. He is the man who might be unable to get possession of the premises to carry out the work required under the regulations however much he might desire to do the right thing. That situation could arise, as is recognised a little later in the Bill by Clause 20 in which such a person is given the right to apply to the county court for power to enter. My second Amendment would provide that if the virtuous lessor is taking steps under that Clause, although he may be in breach of the regulations, it should be a defence to any charge under subsection (4) of this Clause that he is contravening the regulations. At least he is taking such steps as he is able to see that he does not continue in breach of them.
I should not have thought that there could be the slightest objection to protecting the genuine person who is trying to carry out the regulations but is unable to do so without applying to the court for assistance. If he is diligently pursuing that course and trying to get the court's directions to allow him to carry out the regulations, he should not be subject to threat of prosecution and be put in jeopardy under subsection (4).

Mr. Brooke: I am afraid that there is a certain difference of opinion between my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and myself on this. It emerged in Committee, and I fear that it still persists, because the Government do not see the necessity for the Amendments. In Committee, I indicated my


preference for retaining the word "knowingly". I need hardly go over the arguments again because my hon. Friend has admirably recounted them.
My hon. Friend wishes the word "wilfully" to be inserted instead of "knowingly", because he conceives a situation where the regulations might impose duties on a person who is not in a position to carry them out. These are regulations dealing with good management. They are not regulations dealing with the carrying out of major work on the premises, and I find it extraordinarily hard to see how the regulations would be likely to impose duties upon somebody who could not, if he wished, carry them out.
I still think that local authorities, which after all have a lot to do, are not likely to seek to add to their troubles and tasks by prosecuting a person who is virtually certain to win his case in the court because he will be able to show that he could not do what the local authority is prosecuting him for not doing. Even if a local authority took such action, I cannot conceive that the court would impose any penalty on him.
My hon. Friend has added the further proposal to write into the Bill a particular defence—if a person can show that he is
diligently prosecuting an application under subsection (1) of section twenty of this Act".
Clause 20 refers to the execution of work, whereas the regulations deal with good management. I do not lay too great stress on that, but it would be odd to insert a provision about what might be a good defence when various other circumstances might arise which could equally afford the person concerned a good defence. I do not see how, if one did that, one could stop short of specifying other forms of defence which a person might successfully plead.
My hon. Friend did rather pooh-pooh my argument in Committee against inserting the word "wilfully", but on both sides we have always recognised that the powers under Part II of the Bill are directed not against the ordinary person who is doing his best to look after his property, but against the sort of man who is determined to exploit the property and who knows, or will find out, any

and every loophole to enable him to continue to do so.
Successful prosecution of a man like that would be made more difficult if the local authority had to prove that in every instance his failure to comply with the regulations was wilful. It is far harder to prove wilfulness than to prove knowing failure to comply. I am concerned lest some people, whom we all want to see brought to book by this part of the Bill, are able to slip through the net on account of such a change.
I greatly respect my hon. Friend's desire to protect the innocent lessor, or everybody else who is innocent in this matter, but the Bill as it stands gives sufficient protection and we should be erring in a dangerous direction if we inserted the first of the Amendments. The second is unnecessary and inadvisable because it specifies one form of defence leaving in the air the question of why the Bill would not in those circumstances go on to specify other forms. It is on those grounds that I must ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill: In page 14, line 29, at end insert:
Provided that he shall not be liable if he shows that he is diligently prosecuting an application under subsection (1) of section twenty of this Act.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Question, That those words be there inserted in the Bill, put and negatived.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 14, line 31, to leave out from "shall" to second "of" in line 32 and to insert:
require an affirmative resolution of both Houses.
This Amendment concerns the code of management for houses in multiple occupation, which code the Minister will have power under the Clause to bring into existence by making regulations. The Bill, as it stands, requires that these regulations shall be subject to what we know in this House as the negative procedure. The purpose of this Amendment is to make them subject to the alternative method of consideration, namely, the affirmative procedure.
We are now discussing a matter which we were not able to touch upon at all during the Committee stage. There was


an Amendment put down, but the hon. Member concerned did not move it. Now I see that both he and we on this side have, on further consideration, thought it right to press the matter. We are not asking for the affirmative Resolution as against the negative merely in order to make it more difficult for the Minister to bring the code of management into existence. We think it desirable that it should be brought into existence; but, as the House will know, under the negative procedure the Statutory Instrument is made and can then be prayed against at any time in the following 40 Parliamentary days. If, however, it is so prayed against, we have only an hour and a half for debate, and that at a time when attendance is often somewhat limited and when it is not possible to go into any great detail on the matter.
We felt that that is inadequate for a document of this kind. After all, this will be something new in housing law. We do not criticise the Minister for his pride in that fact, but he does take a good deal of pride in how new this is, and the extent to which he is embarking upon a new venture. When this code of management, created by Ministerial regulations, comes before the House, we say that there should be an opportunity to discuss it at reasonable length. That result we should get if it was made subject to the affirmative procedure.
I ask the Minister to look sympathetically at our proposal. In another Session the Government will not, one supposes, have got its business into the muddle it has got into during this Session. It will, consequently, be able surely to find time for one affirmative, rather than negative, Resolution. I say that because this will not be one of those things which we have to discuss even every year. This is a modest request, and, if accepted, it will make it much easier for the House to take an intelligent interest in this new code of management when it comes before us.

Mr. Brooke: At this hour of the morning I will refrain from seeking to straighten out the mind of the hon. Gentleman about the alleged but non-existent muddle in which Government business is supposed to be. I will confine myself to this Amendment, which

I have carefully considered. If this was a case of such a character that hon. Members on both sides might not have had proper opportunity to debate it, then I would have been disposed to have accepted the Amendment. I cannot think that it is a case of that character.
I have already told the Standing Committee that these regulations will be shown in draft to the local authority associations. The purpose of that will be to make quite sure that the Minister will have been able to inform himself of the technical points which representatives of the local authorities may have wished to raise. Indeed, I went further than that, because I recognised from our proceedings in Committee that hon. Members on both sides were interested, and I made it clear that I did not want to consult the local authority associations in any way which might give them an advantage over hon. Members of this House, and gave the assurance that if our Parliamentary traditions allowed I should be glad to show the regulations in draft form.
12.15 a.m.
I understand that there is no Parliamentary bar to my doing that, and therefore I repeat that assurance. It means that there is no fear of the regulations when they are laid taking hon. Members as it were unawares. It might happen in certain circumstances that only towards the end of the forty days would hon. Members become alive to the fact that there were questions which they wished to put to the Government about regulations, but there will be nothing of that sort in this case. Everybody who has shown an interest in the matter will have a full opportunity to see the regulations at an early stage, and there should be no risk of their passing unnoticed until perhaps the thirty-ninth or fortieth day of the permitted period for a Prayer.
It is not for me to dogmatise about these things, Mr. Speaker, but I have always understood that if in your judgment a Prayer has not been adequately discussed by half-past eleven you can permit the discussion to be resumed on another evening.
In all those ways it seems to me that there should be adequate opportunities for hon. Members not only to inform themselves of what is in the regulations,


but to raise with the Government any points they wish to raise. I give the assurance that I shall be anxious to take a great deal of trouble about the framing of these regulations. We had valuable debates on this in Committee upstairs, and I indicated that I wanted to learn the views of hon. Members on both sides.
I recognise the importance of these regulations, and in resisting the Amendment I am not attempting for one moment to cause their importance to dwindle. I am resisting it simply and solely because in my judgment this is a matter which can be amply discussed by hon. Members on a Prayer, that is, under the negative Resolution procedure, and it does not seem to me that this is a case where an affirmative Resolution of both Houses should necessarily be required.

Mr. Mapp: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I also had the advantage of hearing him in the Committee upstairs. As I see it, the Minister is preoccupied about this vital set of regulations in relation to himself and to hon. Members. It is right and proper that both he and the House should have an opportunity to look at and review them.
The Minister said that he would consult local authorities before the regulations were placed before the House. So far so good.

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make good an omission. I meant to say that I would consult not only the local authority associations but professional organisations and other bodies of that kind who would naturally be interested in the draft regulations.

Mr. Mapp: That intervention is in order. I remember the discussions on this point. What the Minister said just now adds to the point I am making, that both he and the House are anxious that the proper machinery should be used for creating this social improvement. These regulations will be of prime importance to the folks who have to live in these houses of multiple occupation. If, by the procedure of the House, in which I am not an expert, those regulations go through without much publicity getting

into the homes of the average person, we shall have partly failed in our object of educating not only those who have the ownership and control of these houses but the folks who live in them, and who are entitled to understand what means are available to them of ensuring that their homes are up to the proper standard.
I ask the Minister not to be so modest about this. He should reconsider the matter, and if he finds what appears to be an ulcer in our housing system he should deal with it by way of the affirmative procedure, thereby ensuring that more is known about the regulations. We want to get off on the right foot. I have asked him to use his influence as a Minister to apprise local authorities of the things that this Measure foreshadows. Here is another opportunity for him to cultivate public opinion in the councils of Westminster, in order that these provisions may be brought in not only willingly but knowingly on the part of the public as a whole.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 14.—(POWER TO REQUIRE DOING OF WORK TO MAKE GOOD NEGLECT OF PROPER STANDARDS OF MANAGEMENT.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 15, line 14, at the end to insert:
or the magistrates' court may order

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be convenient to the House to take with this Amendment the Amendment in Clause 16, page 17, line 11, after "allow", insert:
or the county court may order

Mr. Page: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the Amendment is to allow a person who is appealing to a magistrates' court against a notice served upon him under this part of the Bill to ask the court to extend his time for appeal. As the subsection stands, the only authority who can extend the time for appeal is the local authority itself. A person served with a notice to do something under the Clause and thinking he has a right to appeal against that notice—and he is given that right under this subsection—must do so within twenty-one days.
The only relief from that is if the local authority extends that twenty-one days. The local authority is a party to the appeal, and as far as I know it is entirely unprecedented for the court itself to be refused the right to extend the time for appeal if good cause is shown by an appellant. The same principle is adopted in Clause 16, under which there is an appeal to the county court. Again, I propose that the court itself should be given power to extend that time if good cause is shown why the appellant is out of time in bringing his appeal.
In Committee, my right hon. Friend explained his reason for giving twenty-one days and no longer. He said that there must be a fixed time for appeal; but there may be cases in which the person served with the notice and the local authority wish to discuss and negotiate, and under those circumstances the local authority should extend the time. That is just the sort of case where the appellant should be permitted to go to court and say, "I have been in negotiation with the local authority over the work to be done on these premises to put them right; I regret that I did not know that a period of 21 days was fixed by the Act and that only the local authority can extent them." He may have had a verbal assurance from an official that it would be all right to go on negotiating because the local authority would extend the time. But he should be allowed to go to the court and, if he has a good excuse, the court, and not the other party to the action, should have the power to extend the time.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has explained my right hon. Friend's reason for drafting the Bill as it is. There must be some fixed time within which an appeal can be submitted, otherwise there will be more scope for evasion by a landlord minded that way. But my right hon. Friend wants to make sure that, if the local authority and the individual landlord or owner are in the middle of negotiations, it should be possible to extend the period during which an appeal can be made.
My hon. Friend will, I am sure, accept the fact that the appellant must be ex-

pected to know his rights. If he feels that the negotiations will come to nothing, or suspects that the local authority will not extend the period of appeal if the negotiations do come to nothing, then he can protect his position by putting in an appeal during the 21-day period. My hon. Friend suggests that this is an unprecedented situation, but my right hon. Friend is only following the precedents of many previous Acts, and I would quote, in particular, Section 36 of the Housing Act, 1957, under which a landlord is required to do the work to render a house fit for habitation and is given a period for lodging an appeal of twenty-one days. That section has no provision for the court to extend the period.
This is precedented and fair. The power to extend the period of appeal is only given so that the local authority may use it when negotiations are going on, and the appellant can always protect himself by putting in his appeal before the end of twenty-one days if any situation such as my hon. Friend describes is arising. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Loughlin: I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary cannot see his way to accept 'the Amendment. There is nothing in it to which exception can be taken. It would mean in practice that the local authority would still have the same rights as the appellant. It could still determine whether to grant an extension of time in which an appeal could be made, but additionally there would be an independent arbiter.
If the local authority decides that it does not want to extend the time, then surely the appellant—and one can only work on the principle inherent in British law that a man is innocent until proved guilty—should have the right to ask an independent arbiter to decide whether, in the circumstances, he is entitled to the time for which he asks. Who could better fill such a rôle in these cases than the magistrates' court on the one hand and the county court on the other?
12.30 a.m.
It may well be that it is precedented, but it seems to me so simple and so indicative of the need to be absolutely fair


at all times. The arguments advanced by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary do not seem to me to be valid. Is there any real reason why it should not be accepted? Could not the point be met? I do not see the grounds on which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is rejecting the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7.—(CARRYING OUT OF WORKS BY LOCAL AUTHORITY.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 18, line 18, at the end to insert:
(2) Notwithstanding the foregoing subsection, if before the expiration of the time mentioned in that subsection the person on whom the notice was served notifies the local authority in writing that he does not intend to do the work in question, the local authority may, if they think fit, themselves do the work forthwith.
This Amendment arises from a very helpful suggestion from the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), who said that it was a shame that a local authority might have to wait to use its default powers to carry out works under Clause 17 until the end of the period which it had allowed the owner or the occupant of the house to do so, if the owner or occupant never intended to carry out the work. My right hon. Friend undertook to look into that suggestion and this Amendment is the result.
The House will observe that this Amendment would advance the date at which the local authority might use its default powers in a case in which the person on whom the works notice was served notified the local authority in writing that he did not intend to do the work; and the local authority thought fit to do the work at once instead of waiting until the end of the period. It is important to note that the local authority is given the discretion. It is empowered to do this and it will have to decide whether it is a suitable case.
My right hon. Friend has in mind the absolutely clear case as being the most suitable, a case in which the freehold of the house is in the hand of the person on whom the notice is served and where there are no complications or other interests involved. In such a clear case there would be considerable advantage in the local authority being able to advance the date if the person on whom

the notice had been served definitely indicated that he did not intend to do the work. With those qualifications, my right hon. Friend thinks that this would be a useful addition to the powers of the local authorities, and he hopes that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. M. Stewart: It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), who has contributed so notably to the improvement of this Bill, is not able to be with us at this particular moment. We are very glad that the Government have seen fit to adopt the suggestions he has made. That shows how much better we get on when the Government accept advice from this side of the House in general and from my hon. Friend in particular. We are liable to get on better when the Government display confidence in public enterprise and the capacity of local authorities to get on with the job. It is that kind of Amendment we have been pressing, and we are very glad that on this occasion we have the Government with us.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(DIRECTIONS TO PREVENT OR REDUCE OVERCROWDING IN HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION.)

Amendment made: In page 21, line 2, leave out "twenty-eight" and insert "thirty-five".—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 21, line 8, at the end to insert:
(9) The local authority may from time to time serve on the occupier of a house or part of a house in respect of which a direction under this section is in force a notice requiring him to furnish them within seven days with a statement in writing giving all or any of the following particulars, that is to say—

(a) the number of individuals who are, on a date specified in the notice, living in the house or part of the house, as the case may be;
(b) the number of families or households to which those individuals belong;
(c) the names of those individuals and of the heads of each of those families or households; and
(d) the rooms used by those individuals and families or households;
and if the occupier makes default in complying with the requirements or furnishes a statement which to his knowledge is false in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.


We had some discussion in Standing Committee on Clause 18 about the difficulties which might arise in enforcing a direction which places a limit on the number of individuals who could live in a house. I think it was the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) who put forward a suggestion that the local authority should be empowered to require that a list of the people living in a house should be provided. The Government have considered that suggestion, as we have considered everything else that was said in Committee, and it seems to us that this would be a useful addition to local authorities' powers. There are some drafting Amendments that will necessarily follow, and perhaps we can discuss at the same time the whole remaining group of Amendments to page 21, which are all consequential on the Amendment I am moving.
This Amendment would enable a local authority to require an occupier—if a direction under Clause 18 has been made in respect of that house, but not otherwise—to furnish a statement in writing giving particulars of the numbers of individuals and households and the rooms they occupy. I think it will be clear to the House that this information should help the local authority in checking whether a Clause 18 direction is being complied with. I think that in Committee there was a fairly widespread acceptance of the belief that otherwise difficulty might arise. Under the proposed Amendment an occupier who knowingly makes a false statement will be liable to a fine not exceeding £20.
While stressing that the obligation to furnish a list will apply only to the occupiers of houses on which a Clause 18 direction has already been made and does not apply to other houses in multiple occupation, I hope that the way in which the Government have thought this out and presented the Amendment will commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. A. Evans: There is one point which the House should consider. It is a point which runs through the whole of Clause 18. The onus is placed on the occupier to supply the local authority with information about the numbers of persons living in a house, or part of a house. There is a £20 fine involved for

failure to supply that information. I am not clear how the right hon. Gentleman would expect this information to be supplied if he were to place the responsibility for supplying it on the occupier. In Part II of the Bill responsibility is placed upon the person managing or having control of the house. When we come to Clause 18 and to this Amendment the responsibility for furnishing the information as to numbers is placed upon the occupier. If by "occupier" is meant the person occupying part of the house and not the owner, I am doubtful if the occupier would be competent to supply the information.
I should have thought that the number of people occupying one of these houses would be a matter for the owner or the person in charge of the house, and that such a person should be made responsible not only for furnishing a return as to numbers but also for complying with any direction that the local authority might give under Clause 18 not to increase the numbers and not to replace any person who vacated the house.
The Minister may have an adequate reason for placing responsibility on the occupier, but I cannot see how he can expect the occupier to be responsible for supplying this information. I should have thought that the manager, who has been so frequently mentioned, would be the responsible person.

Mr. MacColl: I warmly welcome this Amendment. It may well turn out to be the thin end of registration, and I certainly hope it will. The power given to the local authority here is very valuable and is a strengthening of its authority in the matter, and I certainly welcome it.
I should, however, like to comment on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans). This has had a rather curious drafting history, because in the original Bill Clause 18 did not refer to the occupier at all. It provided for the local authority to issue a notice dealing with the maximum number of persons who may occupy the house. Therefore, apparently, "persons who may occupy the house" is not the same as the occupier of the house.
In Committee the Government, in order to introduce what was known as


the run-down Amendment, removed subsection (1) from the Clause and replaced it with what is now subsection (1), introducing for the first time the "occupier". In order to get out of the obvious ambiguity—at least, I take it that this is the reason for it—of referring to the "occupier" in one line and "persons occupying" in the next line, it became
…the highest number of individuals who shouldֵlive".
My impression is that the reason why "occupier" is used here instead of "owner" is that it refers to the person who in some sense is occupying parts of the house—a series of rooms or something of that sort—and knows the family trees of the persons who are living as his lodgers or his family. I suppose that is the reason why responsibility is placed on the "occupier" instead of the "person managing". But it still leaves me very confused about who the occupier is and how he is defined. As far as I know, in the Housing Act, 1957, "owner" is defined but "occupier" is not. Does it mean the rateable occupier? If it does, it will be a very narrow definition indeed, because in a great many of these houses the person who knows the family tree is not the rateable occupier. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West so wisely says, we are placing a penalty on somebody, we should know on whom we are placing it.
12.45 a.m.
In its present form, the Bill refers to the occupier of the house and places a responsibility on him for permitting numbers of people to live in the house and so on. In the Amendment, we bring in the expression
occupier of a house or part of a house".
Why is there a distinction drawn between placing duties on the occupier of a house, on the one hand, and on the occupier of a house or part of a house, on the other? What is the difference? Are there no duties under subsection (2) on the occupier of part of the house?
Why are there now to be two penalty provisions in the Clause? We have a penalty in subsection (10). We are now introducing a new penalty attached only to subsection (9). It will be confusing to have the two. As far as I can see, they are more or less the same in regard to first offences, although the Amend-

ment has no higher penalties for second offences. That seems to make life rather difficult.
It may be the late hour of the night, but I have the impression that the Government have gone out of their way to make this matter as confusing as they could. There are ambiguities and confusions in it. However, as I have said, I warmly welcome the Amendment, in spite of the comments I have made about it.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for the welcome the House has given to the Amendment, although several searching questions have been asked. Whether I can answer them all I do not know. I shall try. If there are any doubts left, I shall see that the matters are carefully looked at when the Bill reaches another place.
It did not seem to the Government that knowingly to make a false statement in response to a request for this information was the type of case where the penalty ought to be stepped up for a second or subsequent offence. There is no particular likelihood of the person being a kind of cumulative offender here who thought he would gain something by committing the offence repeatedly. There is a very stiff penalty for a second offence in relation to this Part of the Bill, and it seemed to the Government that, despite the complication it would cause, there should simply be the one offence with a fine not exceeding £20 for an occupier who knowingly makes a false statement.
With respect, I think some of the questions about the use of the word "occupier" related rather to the Clause as a whole than to this Amendment. As it stands now, the Clause refers to the occupier, and it clearly would have been inapposite for the new subsection (9) which I seek to introduce to refer to anybody but the occupier. It is the occupier who has the duties under this Clause.
However, the main reason why the word "occupier" is used here and not "manager" is that the house which is in question under Clause 18 may not be a house which is subject to a management order. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to place responsibility on the manager. There will, however,


always be an occupier; there will be no doubt or impossibility about fixing the responsibility upon somebody. The owner may be an absentee; his whereabouts may be unknown; but the occupier is bound to be there if the house is in occupation.
Then the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) asked me about this phrase
occupier of a house or part of a house
and inquired why that did not appear elsewhere in the Clause, in particular in subsection (2). If he looks at the wording of subsection (3) he will see it stated that
References in the foregoing subsections to a house include references to part of a house
and, of course, this is coming in subsection (9), so we must be quite sure we cover the part of a house in subsection (9). This is a house which may be in the occupation of a number of families or may be let in lodgings. There may be different occupiers of different parts of the house, as is recognised in subsection (3), and it is in order that sub- section (9) shall be fully integrated with the rest of the Clause as it will read that this perhaps somewhat complex wording is used in the Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: Has it ever occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that it might be possible to put the present subsection (3) lower down in the Bill? I do not think that that would be a very difficult operation.

Mr. Brooke: It had occurred to me, but it does not arise on this Amendment, and I have little doubt that if I were to suggest it to the draftsman he would find cogent if not compelling reasons why that should not be done.

Mr. Graham Page: I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at the wording of this Clause again before it gets through another place, particularly these words "occupier of part of a house". The occupier of part of a house may be served by the local authority with a notice or direction under this Clause to give all these particulars, and if he does not, then he is liable to a penalty of £20. The occupier of part of the house may be merely a lodger or he may happen to be the person whose name some-

body at the local authority's offices happens to know and so he is served with a direction. Then he is dragged to the court. When he gets to the court he says, "I am only the lodger there. I am not the person responsible." The court must say, "That is no concern of ours. Parliament in its wisdom has laid down that the occupier of part of the house can be directed by the local authority to give these particulars. If he does not give them he is liable to a fine of £20."
It is no good my right hon. Friend saying that the local authority would not be so foolish as to do this. We must not create offences in this way so that a court must give stupid convictions of this sort. The court cannot do anything else when faced with circumstances like this, when responsibility is imposed on an occupier of the premises, if he defaults. Even though he may be a lodger there, or a person staying there only for one night and occupying a room for a night, the court has to convict him.

Mr. Loughlin: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would explain to me, in the light of his previous explanation, how this squares up with the wording of the Clause. Subsection (2) says:
A direction under the foregoing subsection shall have effect so as to make it the duty of the occupier for the time being of the house not to permit any individual to take up residence in the house
and so on. This question of the occupier as it relates both to the Clause and the Amendment places an enormous responsibility possibly upon a sub-tenant.

Mr. A. Evans: Has it not occurred to my hon. Friend that it would not be within the power of the occupier to prevent people coming into the house? Only the landlord or the manager has the power.

Mr. Loughlin: Certainly. That is precisely the point that I am making. The occupier would not have the power not to permit. The Minister might correct me, because there is no point in making a mistake at this stage if these things have already come out in discussion.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member is now asking me questions not about the Amendment but about the rest of the Clause which has already been approved


in Standing Committee. I will look at all these matters, because obviously it is desirable that the Clause shall be a unity and as clear as can be. The Government have sought to insert in the Clause a new subsection which by common consent will be of value, and those people much wiser than myself in the drafting of Bills have advised me that this subsection in the Amendment is rightly drafted to achieve the purpose.
My answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), at any rate off the cuff and I may be wrong, is that in subsection (9, a) of the Amendment there is a reference, and that is the first information that the occupier can be asked to give, to the number of individuals living in the house or in part of the house, as the case may be. The occupier of the whole house may be asked to give a list of the people living in the whole house and the occupier of part of the house may be asked to give a list of the people living in that part of the house. I think that it is the answer but I will willingly look into it because we are extremely anxious to get the drafting right. I am encouraged by the fact that the general purpose of the Amendment seems to be acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 21, line 11, leave out "section" and insert "subsection".

In line 12, after "under" insert "the last foregoing subsection of".

In line 15, leave out "this section" and insert "that subsection".

In line 18, leave out "either of those sections" and insert:
that subsection or the said section ninety".—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 19.—(OFFENCES UNDER S. 90 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Amendments made: In page 21, line 33, after "or", insert "subsection (9) of".

In line 36, leave out "either of those sections" and insert:
the said section ninety or the said subsection".—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 20.—(SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.)

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 22, line 6, to leave out "dispense with the consent" and to insert:
give the necessary consent in place of that other person
Subsection (1) gives a person who is served with a notice to do something under this part of the Bill and finds he needs the consent of some other person to carry out that work the right to apply to the county court if that other person refuses consent. As the subsection stands, what the county court may do is to dispense with that consent, but it may be that the person desiring to carry out the work needs to enter and to go on to the premises. Dispensing with consent is insufficient in such cases. The county court could give consent itself and deem consent to have been given. Therefore, for the words "dispense with the consent" we want to substitute the words
give the necessary consent in place of that other person".
That would solve that problem.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend suggests that the words proposed by my hon. Friend improve the drafting of the Bill and remove any shadow of doubt. He hopes that the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 22, line 33, after "capacity", to insert:
or any responsible shareholder of the body corporate

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It may also be convenient with this to take the Amendments in page 22, line 35, at end add:
In the case of a body corporate which is a company under the control of not more than five persons within the meaning of section two hundred and fifty of the Income Tax Act, 1952, each of those persons shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be an officer of the body corporate.
In page 23, line 3, at end insert:
or, as the case may be, was not a responsible shareholder
and In page 23, line 15, at end insert:
(7) For the purpose of this section "responsible shareholder" means a person who by


virtue of his beneficial ownership of shares of a body corporate, whether or not his name appears on the register of shareholders, exercises or is entitled to exercise directly or indirectly, control of the body corporate.

Mr. MacColl: That would be very helpful.
Clause 20 (4) has some valuable proposals and says:
Where an offence punishable under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence…
In Committee, I moved an Amendment to add sharehokiens to that list because of the special problem created by a number of fly-by-night companies which take over property and often transfer it rapidly from one company to another, or suddenly go into liquidation and so on. It is very useful that the directors and managers of such a company should be held personally responsible and I do not quarrel with that, but one is faced with the problem of the shareholder who dominates the company, but who has the wisdom to slide out of responsibility as an officer of the company and put in a woman or man of straw to take responsibility.
In Committee I made the point that my wording would probably not meet the problem of the case where shares were in the names of nominees and, with his usual skill, the Parliamentary Secretary agreed with me and used that argument for riding off the whole issue. However, he said that he would have another look at it and I am sorry that he has not done anything about it.
We had another look at it and we have put forward two alternative ways in which this matter might be tackled. We offer them to the Government in the most helpful spirit. Apparently, they have not our skill in these matters and have not been able to do their own homework, so we shall be delighted to lend them ours. I am afraid that my explanation of our two methods involves a pleasant meander through the Income Tax Act, 1952, which, at one o'clock in the morning, will not be universally popular with hon. Members.
The first proposal which we put forward is simply to define a responsible shareholder in the body corporate. We take that as a term of art and give the definition as being a person who was
…the beneficial ownership of shares of a body corporate, whether or not his name appears on the register of shareholders, exercises or is entitled to exercise directly or indirectly, control of the body corporate.
That limits the responsibility to a shareholder who is in control of the company. It does not mean even a substantial shareholder who is not in control.
The other method is to go to the Income Tax Act, 1952, where it deals with what might be called the small family company, formed in order to avoid Surtax. At some stage in the proceedings I must point out that there is a small misprint in our Amendment as it appears on the paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). Three letters have been missed out, so that there is reference to Section 250 instead of Section 256 of that Act.
That Section is most interesting in the context about which we are speaking, because it deals with the problem of a company under the control of not more than five persons, and that is likely to be the sort of company we are talking about. We are not talking of the reputable public company which has a large number of shareholders. We are concerned with a company which may well be bogus in design, and so the limit of five persons in control comes near the mark. This decides the whole problem of who is in control. This Section of the 1952 Act states,
…five or fewer persons together exercise, or are able to exercise, or are entitled to acquire, control, whether direct or indirect, over the company's affairs, and in particular…the greater part of the share capital or voting power of the company…
Fascinating stuff, Mr. Speaker, and it is about a matter which is very relevant to what we are now considering. It goes on to define a relative as a
husband, wife, ancestor, lineal descendant, brother or sister…
and states that
a person shall be deemed to be a nominee of another person if, whether directly or indirectly, he possesses on behalf of that other person, or may be required to exercise on the direction of or on behalf of that other person, any right or power which, by virtue of any of the provisions of this section, is


material in determining whether a company is or is not to be deemed to be under the control of not more than five persons.
This, again, is fascinating, and it might well be very relevant to what we are discussing.
The alternative proposal is, instead of simply defining the controlling shareholder where there is a company under the, control of five persons, or fewer, within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, each of these people should be deemed to be an officer. If by neglect an offence is committed, any of them shall be held responsible. If they are not responsible, then they would not be liable, any more than an officer of the company would be.
We have put forward two alternative proposals which we say would be extremely valuable. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has said that if one was brutal enough to the "front men" one might get a kind of seller's market in the "front men" and shareholders in the background would not be able to do anything about it. That is a brutal way of going about this. We have dealt with this in an earlier Amendment about acquisition and the brutal attitude of the Government towards landlords and being prepared to imprison them. I think that it would be a cumbersome way to do it, to go on chasing these companies round the place and imprisoning their representatives.
It sounds clever, but it would be an extremely laborious business and would, as I said on an earlier Amendment, often cause great hardship to the tenants while this performance was going on. I therefore think that one or the other of these methods would be a useful way of getting at the people who are in effective control of the house.

Sir K. Joseph: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been assiduous and ingenious in trying to crack this nut. My right hon. Friend sympathises with their objective of trying to catch a manipulating and controlling shareholder who hides behind a screen of officers who will be the people to take the rap under this Bill. I have to tell the House that there are grave difficulties in either of the approaches suggested by hon. Gentlemen, but I have to add some words of comfort, because to some extent their efforts are unnecessary.
First, to dispose of the Amendment in page 22, line 35. It is true that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue can do a certain amount to penetrate the screen of nominees behind which a controlling shareholder may hide. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have a considerable staff for this purpose, and it is doubtful whether local authorities could operate in this way.
As the hon. Gentleman recognised, there is the difficulty that the beneficial shareholder, the person at whom these Amendments are directed, can hide behind successive screens of nominees and so make it all the more difficult to catch up with him. I confess that the attempt to make a shareholder, even if he is quite overt and does not screen himself in this way, responsible for neglect in any way, is bound to fail. The House will remember that this is an attempt to extend the consent, connivance or neglect of any officer to the controlling shareholder.
A shareholder has no duty to operate the company, and therefore he cannot be said to be guilty of neglect in any sense since there is no duty which he can neglect. On the other hand, if a local authority can show that a controlling shareholder has consented or connived to any action which by this legislation is a criminal offence, then by that fact alone, without any writing in of Amendments, the local authority can presumably catch him as an accessory or for aiding and abetting.
That is very nearly the only legal comfort I have for the hon. Gentleman. When I say the only legal comfort, the other comfort I have for him is what he mentioned, namely, that when this Bill bites on the officers who operate companies of this sort there will be a rapid dwindling of the number of people who will be willing to serve as such officers in future. Consequently, the manipulating controlling shareholder will have more and more to take the rap himself, and my right hon. Friend hopes that by that means the purpose of hon. Gentlemen will be achieved.
I must warn the House that this series of Amendments as at present drawn will not achieve their purpose, and for those reasons I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not press them.

Amendment negatived.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, at the end to insert:
(6) Section one hundred and fifty-nine of the principal Act (which confers powers of entry for the purposes mentioned in that section) shall apply to entry for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been a contravention of any regulation or direction made or given under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, but so much of that section as requires notice to be given of the intended entry shall not apply to entry for the purpose mentioned in this subsection.
This Amendment gives effect to a promise I made in Committee to introduce an Amendment which would make it certain that local authorities had adequate powers of entry for the purpose of ascertaining whether there had been any contravention of requirements or regulations made under Clause 13 and applied to houses by orders under Clause 12, or any contravention of a direction made under Clause 18. The Amendment provides a power of immediate entry for those purposes. It seems to the Government that there should be a power of immediate entry in this case, because it is desirable that an officer of a local authority can go in without delay to make sure whether the regulations or directions are being complied with, and the possibility of making sure of that might be weakened or invalidated if there were an obligation to give twenty-four hours' notice.
It has appeared to the Government, on examination, that an additional power of this kind is desirable, but in the view of the Government it should be confined to cases where there is a regulation or a direction in force. That is why the Amendment is drafted as it is.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "ascertaining", to insert:
whether a house is let in lodgings or occupied by more than one family; how many individuals and households are accommodated in it or".
In some ways the Government Amendmentment is more drastic than the new Clause we moved in Committee. As far as I understand it, it removes all requirement to give notice and all need to apply for a warrant. We took our precedent from the Public Health Act for applying

for a warrant for entry without notice. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is dispensing with that. In other words, this is a very smart invasion of an Englishman's home. I do not quarrel with that particularly, because if he does not think a warrant is necessary I am a little surprised, but it will make for more efficient enforcement.
But in the other respect the Amendment does not go as far as our proposal did. We are very worried about the problem of discovering which houses should be subject to the provisions of the Measure—which should have an order made in respect of them and in which case there should be a direction, and so on. The Bill may deal with the glaring cases, about which everybody knows; it may operate fairly smoothly in the first few months. But thereafter it will tend to become a dead letter, because it will be comparatively easy to evade it.
The simplest and most obvious case is that where it is known pretty notoriously that a house has ten or twelve people living in a room. No order has been made, and no direction given. It may be a matter of mere rumour or complaint, without direct evidence. A public health inspector or enforcement officer may visit the premises, but the twenty people will not be there on the night when he arrives; they will have disappeared, but they will return the next night. There is nothing in this extension of the provisions of the Bill which enables that kind of case to be dealt with. That seems to us to be playing with the problem. Unless the Government are prepared to take seriously the problem of how one finds the cases which require the attention of this part of the Bill, it will deal only with the obvious cases and relapse into being a dead letter. We move this Amendment to bring out that point. I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would say that this aspect had been inadvertently overlooked, but apparently it is a case not of oversight but of neglect, and I am sorry that he has made this considerable blunder.

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and I were slightly at cross-purposes, because he was arguing that the Government Amendment went further than the new


Clause which had been moved in Committee by the Opposition, whereas the Government Amendment singles out one particular set of circumstances and says that where it is desirable there should be power of immediate entry. That is the case where there is a direction or regulation in force.
It is not a question of an officer of the local authority wandering round and seeing a house and thinking that he would like to walk straight in. Where the manager or occupier is under certain obligations already, it seems to the Government that without the power of immediate entry it might be very difficult to make certain that these regulations or directions were being complied with. But the Government certainly would not be disposed to go as far as the hon. Member wishes and give a statutory right of immediate entry in any form to any house simply in order to find out whether it is in multiple occupation and how many people are living in it.
The local authorities have the power of Section 159 of the 1957 Act, and in my Department we have never had complaint from local authorities that those powers are inadequate for the purpose of survey and examination to determine whether any of the statutory powers ought to be exercised in respect of a particular house.

Mr. MacColl: That is almost entirely in cases where there is a structural defect. One cannot alter the angle of light or the size of a room in twenty-four hours, but one can alter the number of people sleeping in that room.

Mr. Brooke: But the local authority ought not to need a power of immediate entry to discover whether a house is occupied by more than one family. It is reasonable that it may wish to find out, but there is no reason why it should not give twenty-four hours' notice before entering.
The hon. Member's Amendment also contains the words
'how many individuals and households are accommodated …
Possibly he may be thinking of the old form of Clause 12 rather than the new form, because we are not proposing in the Bill, as amended, that the actual number of individuals should be the

vitally relevant piece of information. What has to be ascertained is whether the house is let in lodgings or occupied by more than one family; and, if it is, whether through some failure of management it is desirable that the regulations should be made applicable to it. As I was saying, these powers of entry under the 1957 Act for the purpose of survey and examination are found adequate by local authorities and there is no reason why they should not be adequate for ascertaining whether a house is let for lodgings or occupied by more than one family. Everything has to start from that. If the house does not comply with those conditions, it does not become subject to the provisions of Part II of the Bill.
I must advise the House that it would be reasonable and not going too far to introduce the immediate power of entry as embodied in the Government Amendment, provided that it is confined to those houses already subjected to regulations or directions. But I could not advise the House to accept the hon. Member's Amendment to the proposed Amendment which, in the view of the Government, would go far too far. It is the Government's view that the existing power of entry under Section 159 of the 1957 Act is quite sufficient for the purpose of ascertaining whether the house actually comes within the conditions laid down in Part II of the Bill.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Clause 29.—(REPAIRING OBLIGATIONS IN SHORT LEASES OF DWELLING-HOUSES.)

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 28, line 30, to leave out "principal".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that with this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss the Government Amendments in page 28, lines 31, 32, 33, 37, and page 29, line 20.

Mr. Brooke: I indicated during the Committee stage proceedings that the Government wished to look further at the drafting of Clause 29. I think that it would be the desire of us all that there should be as little dubiety and uncertainty as possible in drawing the line between landlords' responsibilities and


tenants' responsibilities. A further examination by the Government revealed that the Bill, as introduced, left various uncertainties. But I must give notice to the House that I am not proposing to ask that we proceed too far tonight. This group of Amendments alters the immediate dividing line which is the essence of Clause 29 and the Government consider that the date at which the Clause should operate should be altered. However, that is a matter which we shall come to tomorrow.
I will give an example of the kind of uncertainty which might arise under the Bill as it stands and which in the view of the Government justifies these Amendments. It is not clear, for example, whether the phrase "sanitary fixtures", to be found in line 22, on page 29, includes baths and wash basins. Undoubtedly it is intended to include water closets, but no one would normally describe a bath as a sanitary fixture, yet it is quite clear that the Bill ought not to leave anyone in doubt about whether a bath is covered by Clause 29 as part of the landlord's responsibility or not.
1.30 a.m.
To give another illustration of these uncertainties, what about boilers and hot water tanks? Are they to be regarded as installations for heating or installations for the supply of water? If they are installations for the supply of water, it is by no means clear whether or not they "make use of" the supply. It seems to the Government essential that we should make certain Amendments in this case to reduce to a minimum the risk of uncertainty and litigation about these matters.
What the Amendments do is, first, to drop the reference to "principal installations". If we speak of "principal installations" in a Bill it suggests that there might be some secondary installations for which the landlord is not necessarily responsible. It might be argued that although a hot water tank is a primary installation the hot water pipes leading from the tank to the central heat. ting radiators are secondary installations. That, of course, would make nonsense because. if the landlord is to maintain the tanks of the central heating apparatus, obviously he ought to be under an obligation to maintain the central heating apparatus as a whole.
Secondly, the effect of the Amendments is to make the landlord specifically responsible for all the major bathroom and washing equipment. Perhaps I should mention that water closets are described as sanitary conveniences—we had some reference to this in Committee—purely and simply to conform with the provisions of Sections 33 to 47 of the Public Health Act, 1936.
Thirdly, under the Amendments the landlord is made specifically responsible for all installations used for heating either rooms or water. The landlord will be responsible for domestic boilers, for geysers and other fixed—I emphasise the word "fixed"—gas or electric water heaters, radiators and built-in electric fires. On the other hand, other gas or electric appliances, for example, cookers and refrigerators, remain excluded from the landlord's responsibility as appliances which make use of the supply of water, gas or electricity.
We have examined the Clause under a microscope. We believe that by these Amendments we have removed dubieties and uncertainties which might otherwise exist, but there is no doubt that they draw the line in a somewhat different place from where it might have appeared to be under the Bill as originally introduced. As I shall explain tomorrow, that is the reason why, in the light of what was said in Committee it seemed to the Government essential to change the date of operation of this Clause.

Mr. M. Stewart: It seems to me that, viewed as a whole, these Amendments are desirable, but I take the view that they are much more defining Amendments than Amendments substantially altering what most people would have thought the Clause meant in its original form. To that extent I think they are desirable.
The wording of Clause 29 as it stands is, I would agree, open to dispute and discussion, but I am bound to say that when I saw the words "principal installations" I took them to mean very substantially what the Government are now inserting in the place of those words. I stress this point because the Minister has argued that because of these changes in the wording of Clause 29 it would be justifiable to alter the date on which it comes into force. We shall be discussing that tomorrow—

Mr. Brooke: Today.

Mr. Stewart: Perhaps I should say "this afternoon." I will not pursue the point now, but I want to make it clear that we on this side of the House cannot be regarded as accepting that view at all.
As I said at the beginning, it seems to me that what we are really engaged in on these Amendments is to give a greater precision to Clause 29. I doubt very much whether anyone could really say with his hand on his heart when he sees the Clause 29 which we shall now create out of these Amendments, "Well, really, I had no idea it meant anything like that." It means for all practical purposes what most of us expected and wanted it to mean, and what any reasonable person who had been in on this matter from the moment that it was mentioned in the Queen's Speech debate could reasonably have expected it to mean.
That seems all that it is necessary to say on this issue at the moment. I should have thought that the Minister is now getting the definition about right, and it will be useful in the future for other purposes as laying down a broad general guide to what a landlord ought to be regarded as responsible for, and what can be put on the tenant.
I rather rejoice that we are beginning to say "a basin", "a sink", or "a bath" when we mean to say "a basin", "a sink", or "a bath", instead of talking about "fixtures for making use of the supply of water other than sanitary fixtures" when there is some doubt even what "sanitary fixtures" mean. I heartily commend this practice of calling things by the names we use in ordinary speech, and I hope it will be widely copied in other Statutes.

Mr. Graham Page: There is only one query that I want to put to my right hon. Friend. It is on the question of space heating and the heating of water. He stressed just now that this referred only to fixed installations. In fact, the word "installations" applies to both the proposed new paragraphs, and I presume that it is from that word "installations" that he implies that any fires for space heating, if they are to be included in this, must be fixed fires. But I am wondering how he gets that interpretation of "installation". Would it not just as well refer to moveable electric and gas fires

which one can plug in? They are installations for space heating, and might well be included, even though they are not fixtures.

Mr. Brooke: I shall examine that point, but I very much doubt that a moveable electric fire could be described as an installation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 31, after "dwelling-house", insert "(i)".

In line 32, after "sanitation", insert:
(including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences but not, except as aforesaid, fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity)

In line 33, leave out "heating" and insert:
(ii) for space heating or heating water".[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 28, line 37, to leave out from "lessor" to "shall" in line 39.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 29, line 9, after "and", to insert:
subsection (1) of this section shall not avoid any covenant by the lessee so far as it imposes on the lessee any of the requirements mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of this subsection.
(3)".

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
These are really drafting Amendments. I shall briefly explain them, but I assure the House that they are not intended to do anything fundamental.
Taking first the words it is proposed to leave out, the difficulty about the present drafting is that covenants of this sort may be expressed in several different ways. The words in Clause 29 (1) are rather inflexible they adopt that single formula and they might be held not to apply to covenants which have the same effect but which are worded differently. The Amendment in page29, line 9 writes the same provision into subsection (2) in a more flexible form.
The House will have observed that, under the Amendments, the tenant can be made liable for the maintenance of anything which he adds to the house and is entitled to take with him when he goes. That is linked with another Amendment which we have not yet


reached, and that will be the effect if that further Amendment is agreed to.
Further, the words in line 39, at the end of subsection (1)—
or to make good damage done by the lessee"—
are dropped because they are really too restricted. They do not cover, for example, damage done by the lessee's family, and they are in any case unnecessary because the point is already covered in the expression
to use the premises in a tenant-like manner".
These are really nothing but tidying-up Amendments, and I assure the House that they raise no major point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 29, line 5, after "accident" to insert:
or by dry rot, wet rot, woodworm or other similar decay unknown to the landlord".
I have regarded this as an extremely important matter. Hon. Members may remember that I got a little worked up about it in Committee on an Amendment similar to this. This Amendment seems to me to be one of the greatest importance in the Clause. Perhaps it might not be out of order if I were to say that I hoped to address the House at some length and ask whether my right hon. Friend would wish to interrupt me to give any indication as to his intention of continuing with this Clause tonight. He gave an indication just now that we should be talking about some other parts of the Clause, as I understood it, this afternoon. I had hoped that I should not, perhaps, have to detain the House on an important Amendment like this at this stage. However, since my right hon. Friend does not rise to his feet to interrupt me, I must continue to detain the House at this early hour of the morning.
1.45 a.m.
This Clause imposes an absolute covenant on the landlord to carry out repairs provided that the lease is less than seven years. One can imagine a lease of some six years, and during the last few months of that lease the house collapses for one of the reasons indicated in my Amendment, such as dry rot, which may have been quite unknown to the land-

lord. The tenant in those circumstances would have the right to call upon the landlord to rebuild the premises.
We have recognised in this subsection that there are certain occasions on which it would be quite unfair to call upon the landlord to rebuild or reinstate the premises under this statutory, absolute covenant which the Clause imposes on him. In subsection (2,b) it is recognised that the landlord should not be called upon,
to rebuild or reinstate the premises in the case of destruction or damage by fire, or by tempest, flood, or other inevitable accident
What is meant by "other inevitable accident" I should not like to endeavour to explain.
What I hope to insert is a sort of case in which the landlord may find that he has to expend large sums of money even at the fag-end of a lease in order to reinstate the premises. In the case of dry rot it is very possible that neither the occupier of the house nor the owner of the house knows anything about it until it is at a very advanced stage. I did explain my own experience in this. The whole of one side of my house had to be removed and rebuilt at very considerable expense. Had that house been let to a tenant and this Bill had been an Act the expense would have been entirely crippling. It might have happened at the end of a lease when perhaps a difficult or perverse tenant could have forced the landlord to expend all that money without any real benefit to the tenant from it.
Paragraph (b) as it stands excuses the landlord from reinstating in the case of destruction or damage by flood. I wonder to what extent that is going to be construed by the courts in two or three years' time in the areas which were flooded last year, when the dry rot starts, as undoubtedly, I am advised, it will in those houses where very careful precautions have not been taken, the precautions of lifting the floorboards, letting a draught go through to dry them out for a week or two on end, and then treating them with a special substance to prevent dry rot. In those flooded areas I am quite certain we are going to have serious dry rot, and I wonder if the courts are going to say, "This is due to flood and the landlords are excused in these cases from


rebuilding or reinstating." That is not clear from the Clause. If my Amendment were made it would be perfectly clear.
If we are recognising in these cases of inevitable accident, in cases of fire, in cases of tempest, that the landlord is excused from this covenant, then he certainly ought to be excused from other cases which unknown to him cause such destruction and damage to the house that the expense of reinstating is quite out of proportion to the benefit which would be obtained.
I realise that my wording of the Amendment may not be technically correct. Dry rot, wet rot and woodworm may have some technical definition but those are the three which I know as a layman to cause extreme and unknown danger. They can arise without the owner or occupier or anyone else knowing anything about them, until they are in an advanced stage and require a great deal of expenditure. One should, of course, relieve the tenant of any covenant to reinstate or rebuild in such cases. That must follow. It would be quite improper to accept the principle without realising that we are relieving the tenant of any covenant to reinstate. But that is no reason for imposing on the landlord this very severe liability which if it occurs at the end of a lease might confer no benefit on the tenant.

Mr. A. Evans: The hon. Member will be aware of the following words in the Clause:
.ֵand in determining the standard of repair required by the lessor's repairing covenant, regard shall be had to the age, character and prospective life of the dwelling house
These seem to me to apply where the extent of work required is such as to be unwarrantable in view of the general state of the house.

Mr. Page: I would not rely on those words at all to relieve the landlord of reinstating. If those words had any real force, what is the necessity for paragraph (b) which spells out the cases in which the landlord is not called upon to rebuild or reinstate? I read the words to which the hon. Member draws my attention as meaning the age and character of the house. If it is an old house one would not expect it to be

brought up to modern standards by repairs. One would retain the character of the house and its prospective life. I do not think that those words would relieve the landlord in the sort of case which I have endeavoured to describe.

Mr. Brooke: These matters were raised, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Erring-ton), in Standing Committee and the Government have given further consideration to them. In particular I have thought about what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said about the house which might collapse shortly before the end of the lease owing to undiscovered dryrot. The trouble about my hon. Friend's proposals, however, is that they are inconsistent with the view which the Government have consistently taken that landlords should be under a duty to look after the property they let for people to live in.
I know that dry rot is both inconvenient and expensive. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has had dry rot in his house. I have had dry rot in mine. The owner-occupier has no escape from the obligation to put it right, in some cases, I am afraid, at the cost of having to dig deeply into his pocket. But there really is a difference between flood, fire and storm on the one hand and damage by dry rot or wet rot or structural decay on the other. In the Government's view people who decide to go into the business of letting house property must take very seriously their responsibilities for keeping the property in proper condition, unless they are absolutely prevented from doing so by flood or storm.
I should have thought that there was an obvious obligation on both the landlord who is letting a house and on the owner-occupier of a house. In his own interests, each should keep his eye on the house and, if need be, have a survey made from time to time to see that these latent troubles have not started. Once they start, we all know only too well how rapidly they may spread.
The crux of my hon Friend's argument is that unless his Amendment is adopted, a situation may arise in which the landlord has virtually to rebuild the house because, through one of these causes, it will have fallen down before


the lease ends. In such a case the house would almost certainly have been deemed by the local authority to be unfit for habitation. The obvious course which would be followed in a case like that would be that the local authority would proceed to make a demolition order or a closing order under the 1957 legislation, and that would end the matter. If the house has been put in such an impossible state, almost certainly it would be unfit for habitation and could not be made so.
The argument may be advanced that, even so, the risk should not be left with the landlord to bear; but where else is it to lie? It cannot be fair for it to lie with the tenant. If the landlord is not in a position to make good damage caused by dry rot, a fortiori the tenant will not be in a position to do it and will have the smallest possible incentive to do it, because he has no continuing interest in the house. The practical result of making the Amendment would be that neither party would do anything, neither the landlord nor the tenant, and the house would just decay.

Mr. Graham Page: I put to my right hon. Friend the situation in which a landlord may be willing to carry out the work, but it might take a considerable time. While he is under this covenant, he will have to pay the tenant to find accommodation elsewhere and he will suffer the damage of what I would call the almost inevitable accident of dry rot. That is where the difficulty arises.

Mr. Brooke: I see that there are difficulties and that from one point of view one could treat dry rot as an inevitable accident, but in fact it is not an inevitable accident and each of us who owns and lives in a house is to blame if he allows dry rot to get a hold on it. Surely one is no less to blame if one is letting the house to someone else.
There is an essential difference between damage by fire and flood and storm, which is excepted from the Clause, and damage by dry rot or decay which a landlord who has taken proper care of his property ought to be able to spot and deal with at an early stage. If, as I say, the house has gone too far before it is discovered, then almost certainly the outcome will be that the local

authority will make a demolition or closing order.

Amendment negatived.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 29, line 6, to leave out from "anything" to end of line 8 and to insert:
which the lessee is entitled to remove from the dwelling-house",
This is a small Amendment which I think will improve the meaning of the Clause. The Bill, as it stands, absolves the landlord from the duty to repair or maintain anything not included in the premises when the lease began. The intention here was to exclude anything put in by the tenant during the tenancy, but the Bill goes too far because we really need to cover that case where the landlord himself provides fittings during the tenancy which are of a character which he ought to maintain. It must be remembered that work might be carried out with the help of an improvement grant, and that the landlord is then entitled to charge a higher rent in consequence and he should be under an obligation to maintain these improvements as he is for the rest of the house.
The Amendment excuses the landlord from responsibility only for those items which a tenant has installed, and is entitled to remove when he goes. The point is a relatively straightforward one, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 9, after "and", insert:
subsection (1) of this section shall not avoid any covenant by the lessee so far as it imposes on the lessee any of the requirements mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of this subsection.
(3)".

In line 20, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 29, line 34, at the end to insert:
so far as it is used as a private dwelling
This is an addition to the definition of a dwelling-house and arises from this cause: namely, that the lease under this Section and the dwelling-house under this Section includes one which forms part of a building which also includes business premises. If there is mixed letting, the absolute coverage imposed


on the landlord by the Clause applies not only to the dwelling-house part of the building, but to the business premises as well.
That arises from the fact that the definition in subsection (5) is a lease
…whereby a building or part of a building is lei wholly or mainly as a private dwelling".
The words in my Amendment add:
so far as it is used as a private dwelling".
In order to come within this Clause, the letting would have to be wholly or mainly as a private dwelling, but that does not exclude a small shop which forms part of a dwelling-house or is in premises where there are living quarters and business premises as well.
It seems unfair that the landlord of business premises should be bound by a statutory covenant of the kind set out in Clause 29. I should have thought that it would be fair to exclude that part of the premises which is being run by the tenant for his own profit.
The intention of Clauses 29 and 30 is surely to protect the tenant of the dwelling-house and, from a national and social point of view, to maintain the dwelling-house of the landlord. I should have thought that we ought to exclude from that any part of the premises which is used merely for the private profit of the tenant.

Mr. Brooke: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend realises how narrow is the range of cases at issue here. The only cases in which Clause 29 applies to lettings of mixed premises are first lettings where the residential use is the dominant one. All renewals of leases of mixed premises are outside the scope of this Clause. The reason is that they are all covered by the 1954 Act, and the House will see that in paragraph (i) of Clause 30 (3,b) reference is made to the 1954 Act. For that purpose it does not matter how small a proportion of the dwelling-house is used for business purposes. Even if only one room in a large house is used as a doctor's surgery, the 1954 Act will apply to all renewals of leases.
What we are concerned with here is solely the case of the first letting of mixed premises where the residential use is the main one. What my hon. Friend's

Amendment seeks to do is to establish that the obligation on the landlord shall apply only to the dwelling part of the house and not to the rest. I ask him to consider whether this is really a practical solution.
Perhaps I can give the most obvious case, that of a house in which the ground floor, or a room on the ground floor, has been turned into a shop. The house is used mainly for residential purposes, but above the shop there would be rooms—bedrooms and living rooms. So that those bedrooms and living rooms may be properly habitable, not only their walls but the walls of the shop part of the house must be properly maintained.
In a case like that the structure of the premises is indivisible, and an obligation to keep the dwelling part in repair without an obligation to keep the business part in repair would land us in absurdity.
I hope therefore that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment, especially in the light of what I have said, that all renewals of leases of these mixed premises are not affected by Clause 29.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
I should like to express my appreciation to the House for the progress that we have made. It might be asked why we do not finish the Bill tonight. There are only four more Amendments, and they fall into a single group. I hope that it might be possible to dispose of the group and also give the Bill a Third Reading by seven o'clock tonight, other-wise we shall be in the unfortunate position of having our Third Reading debate interrupted by Private Members' business, which is due to take place from seven o'clock to ten o'clock. I realise that at this hour of the morning nobody can say for certain what will happen later in the day, but if we can do that we shall certainly have a more satisfying Third Reading debate.
Meanwhile, I move the Motion to adjourn further consideration now because I do not think it would be right, at this hour in the morning, to take the final group of Amendments, which raise a substantial point.

Mr. M. Stewart: I share the Minister's hope as to what we may be able to do this evening, although we cannot say how it will work out. In any case, I feel certain that the Motion now moved is a wise one, and it is desirable to break off and start afresh on the rather important issue that awaits us with the few remaining Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered this day.

GENERAL PRACTITIONERS, UPPER WEARDALE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

2.12 a.m.

Mr. William Ainsley: I apologise for seeking to detain the House for a little longer at this late hour—or perhaps I should say at this early hour of the next day—but I feel it a privilege to refer to a complaint of my constituents, the Weardale Rural District Council, the Rev. Charles Smith, vicar of the parish in Upper Wear-dale, on behalf of his parishioners and now, as the change comes home to so many of my constituents, the many letters of protest that I am receiving.
It will be recalled that on 12th June I asked the Minister
if he is aware of the proposal of the local executive council for a change in Upper Wear-dale, County Durham, from doctors' practice to group practice, the additional mileage in travel involved by this proposal ֵ
and so on, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry replied:
The executive council has not reached a decision on the doctors' proposals to alter their places and times of attendance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1961; Vol. 642, c. 2.]
That was not a proper Answer to my Question, for it was already a fait accompli;the doctors' practice had been made into an enlarged joint practice.
I have served as a member of the executive council in Durham for a number of years and am familiar with the administrative council and its committee work. I have with me the full file of correspondence from the clerk to the local authority, which goes back to 3rd

March of this year. Weardale is a large rural area, stretching from the lower reaches of the villages through the hamlets consisting of isolated private residences of retired people to those of people with small fixed incomes, and farms on the hillsides, to the open moorland.
Contrary to expectations, the recent census showed an increase of 7·6 per cent. in the population of this rural district. I have taken part in negotiations with the local authority and the North East Industrial Development Association on the production of a brochure to popularise Weardale as a tourist area. It already attracts a large number of visitors, pony trekking and hiking over the moors. The narrow country road winds its way alongside the lovely, peaceful river to its beginnings, and along to the upper heights and reaches of the Pennine Range. A caravan site in Upper Weardale, already approved by the county planning authority and the local authority has, at times, a population of about 300. The county education committee has recently opened a large house as a youth hostel, housing lively and adventurous young people. There are guest houses and the old-type inns which give accommodation.
Thus, the local pattern is continually changing. The railway passenger service has closed and the bus operators are experiencing greater difficulty in maintaining a reasonable service owing to the high cost. The needs of the area for medical services are as great as ever. My home is 1,000 feet above sea level, and when the roads have been blocked with snow I have often put on Wellington boots and walked to the railway station and there changed to shoes in order to travel to the House of Commons. It is nothing uncommon to find roads blocked in winter, and it is a nightmare to the county roadmen to keep the highway clear in the upper reaches towards the Pennines.
I have received a letter from Dr. Robert Fletcher, now in retirement, who practised in Upper Weardale from 1923 to 1960. He describes the hazards he endured to reach his patients, sometimes on pony and later on skis. In Upper Weardale there have always been two and sometimes three doctors, and he tells me that this goes back to the Crimean War.
I have also passed on to the Parliamentary Secretary photographs which I have received from people in Upper Wear- dale. She will see from these that last winter—one of the mildest in living memory—there was still snow in Upper Weardale. I ask my friends on the executive council in Durham to think again about a decision taken in Durham City with little or no knowledge of the conditions in Upper Weardale. Hence my appeal to the Minister. It is laid down in the National Health Service terms of service for doctors:
… except upon conditions which appear to the Council, or on appeal to the Minister, to be such as to enable his obligations under these terms of service and in particular his obligation to visit his patients, to be adequately carried out.
I cannot recall meeting one of the doctors personally, and what I say is on principle and on the evidence I have rather than against a person. I can only theorise as a result of the correspondence that I have received. Doctors D. and E. Thompson, husband and wife, with Dr. Liddell held a joint practice at Stanhope. Unfortunately the husband, Dr. D. Thompson, was ill and in hospital for several weeks. Dr. A. H. Smith is in practice in Upper Weardale and at one time he thought of approaching the executive council to ask that his wife should come into partnership with him. That was last September. But circumstances brought these doctors together and they agreed among themselves to an extended joint practice all to operate from Stanhope. That led to my Question regarding the additional mileage and travel involved and the cost to the rural area.
We are not against joint practice where conditions are suitable, but circumstances vary between town and country and no set formula can be applied. If Dr. Smith wishes to move to the joint practice in Stanhope, I have no objection. But why should he take all his patients with him? If a vicar moves to an adjoining parish he does not take all his parishioners with him. The present joint practice has been enlarged without the consent of the patients and against their wishes. I ask the Minister or the executive council to say that there should be a practice in Upper Weardale and to advertise it as

vacant and to stop the "poaching" from the new and enlarged joint practice.
This new partnership became effective as from 1st April, and this is confirmed in a letter which I received on 5th May. It was written by the executive council to the Rev. Charles Smith. On 23rd March the dispensing committee saw Doctors Thompson and Smith, but there also was present Mr. W. S. Smith, a chemist and optician, from St. John's Chapel. The committee was surprised to learn that some changes in the pharmaceutical services in the area were also contemplated and likely to take effect in the near future.
One can only come to the conclusion that these professional people have had private consultations and prepared their plans which are now being put into effect, and that at every step they have ignored the wishes of their patients and the public representatives of the people in Upper Weardale. With the practice in Upper Weardale there were three surgeries—at Westgate, St. John's Chapel and Wearhead. The doctors have been uncompromising all along in their negotiations with the council. They have insisted on one surgery and their arguments are based on economy. The executive council has agreed to two surgeries at St. John's Chapel and Wear-head, the position is to be reviewed at the end of six months. For the six summer months the doctors are to keep records of attendances. The doctors are almost to become the judges and jury in their own cause. Even now I have evidence of patients being told that instead of going to Wearhead they are to go to St. John's and that will be the way that the doctors will count patients attending their surgeries. That is the trend of events. I put it to the Minister that this is far from satisfactory, and I think the executive council will find it so later.
This leads to the third problem. Mr. W. S. Smith, chemist and optician, referring to the recent amalgamation resultting in the loss of service, has from 1st June moved into a similar business in Stanhope where the enlarged joint practice is. That leaves the pharmaceutical service arrangements for Upper Wear-dale entirely in the hands of the doctors. Everything appears to me to be cut and dried. Dr. Mrs. E. Thompson wrote to


the clerk of the local authority, when asked for a meeting on 3rd March:
At the moment there are many domestic issues and points to be discussed, particularly with regard to the pharmaceutical service … No useful purpose would be served at this juncture.
This enlarged general practice, now takes in the whole of Weardale rural district and operates from Stanhope over 16 miles of winding narrow country roads at very high altitudes. The parish of St. John's has a population of 850 under these windswept moors facing all the rigours of the North-East. There is lovely peaceful sunshine in summer, but the conditions can be death dealing in the depth of winter. Many of these people are living in retirement on small fixed incomes. They are quiet and reticent, but they are now burning with indignation. I ask that justice should be done for these people in Upper Weardale. The people are entitled to know what the extra remuneration of these doctors is to be for rural mileage and the dispensing of their own prescriptions. On financial grounds and because this is a medical service, I ask the Minister even at this late stage to intervene on the lines I have indicated.

2.28 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): It is the responsibility of the executive council to settle arrangements for general medical services locally in accordance with the provisions of the National Health Act and Regulations and in the light of local conditions with which they are familiar. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) has said that he was at one time a member of Durham Executive Council which is the executive council responsible for the services in Weardale. He will not need me to remind him of the advantages of leaving the detailed provision of these services to those who are in a position to know the needs and circumstances of the local population. He will know that the executive council comprises not only members of the professions, including the rural members, but also lay members nominated by the local health authority and by the Minister. It is the duty of the executive council to look at the

services from the patients' point of view and to keep in touch with local opinion on matters affecting the medical services.
In the present circumstances, the Durham Executive Council agreed to receive a deputation from Weardale Rural District Council and there was a meeting on 20th April at which the concern of the rural district council about the proposed changes and arrangements for medical services in Weardale were fully discussed. Subsequently, there was a meeting between the rural district council and the members concerned although no mutually satisfactory solution emerged However, I think that it is clear that the executive council has been taking pains to go thoroughly into the matter and will continue to do so.
The proposals as they came before the executive council in February fell into three parts; first, a proposed partnership agreement between Dr. Smith who had been practising single-handed in Upper Weardale since April, 1960. and three doctors whose centre of practice is Stanhope, but who also have several hundreds of patients in Upper Weardale; secondly, a proposal of the doctors, as a partnership, to alter their surgery arrangements and, in particular, to close the small surgery at Dr. Smith's residence in Westgate and to discontinue the surgery held by Dr. Smith, on four afternoons and one morning a week, at Wearhead, a total of three hours. This would have left the surgery at St. John's Chapel at which it was proposed to hold a surgery on six mornings and four afternoons each week, as Dr. Smith had formerly done, but to increase the hours from six to ten. In addition, it was proposed to hold there two ante-natal sessions a month. Thirdly, there was a proposal that all the partners should ultimately live at Stanhope.
On the first point—and this is the main point that the hon. Gentleman raised, the one that he feels was unanswered in his earlier Parliamentary Question—doctors may enter into partnership agreements without the consent of the Executive Council. For the purpose of general medical services provided under the National Health Service, doctors in partnership are treated differently from single-handed doctors in several respects. They may have a larger number of patients on any one individual


list, though not more on the average than a single-handed doctor, and the payment arrangements are somewhat different. But provided that the partnership satisfies the definition in the Regulations, it has to be recognised as such by the executive council.
The doctors in this case agreed that their new partnership should begin on 1st April, 1961. The partnership was one within the definition and there was no action for the executive council to take on this agreement, and it is, of course, not a matter on which the Minister could intervene in any way. Unlike the partnership agreement, however, changes in places and times of attendance do require the consent of the executive council, and the executive council has not yet taken a decision on the doctors' proposals to close the Wearhead surgery. As the hon. Gentleman has already said, the executive council has required the doctors to maintain surgeries at both Wearhead and St. John's Chapel as at present with the same hours of attendance. It has requested the doctors to keep a note of the daily attendances at both these surgeries, and we understand that this is being done. The executive council will review the position at the end of six months—that is, in December.
This is the situation which I advised the hon. Gentleman was the position when I replied to his Parliamentary Question, but I will undertake to convey to the Executive Council the points mentioned by the hon. Member relating to the question of keeping both these surgeries open. As there is a right of appeal by the doctor to the Minister if the executive council refuses consent to a doctor's request to change the places, days or hours of his attendance, it would not be proper to discuss in the House the merits of the case which might in due course, following a decision of the executive council, come before the Minister on appeal.
The question of where the doctor chooses to live is bound up with his obligation's to his patients, in particular the obligation to visit them in their homes when necessary. When a doctor is admitted to the medical list of an executive council to provide general medical services he has to undertake to visit patients within a stated district or dis-

tricts. It is primarily the doctor's responsibility to ensure that he is in a position to carry out this obligation—the obligation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is an obligation which must be viewed reasonably. Clearly, a doctor cannot attend to two emergencies at once. The same degree of cover cannot be provided in a rural area of scattered population as can be provided in a large town. In particular, it rests primarily with the doctor to choose to live at a place from which he can reasonably expect to carry out his obligations.
A doctor may not carry on practice elsewhere than at his place of residence except upon conditions which appear to the council, or, on appeal, to the Minister, to be such as to enable his obligations under these terms of service, and, in particular, his obligation to visit his patients, to be adequately carried out.
In the present case, Dr. Smith wishes to live in Stanhope because, so I understand, his present property has to be sold. Incidentally, he is a tenant there. The executive council was correctly advised that there is no power under the regulations by which it could name the doctors' place of residence. At that time, although the executive council had no power to ban the move, it did not conclude that it would raise no objection to the proposal until after it had considered all that had been said by the representatives of the rural district council and others about the possible disadvantages.
Dr. Smith was present at the meetings at which the difficulties of transport and bad weather were discussed. He was, apparently, satisfied that he could overcome those difficulties and carry out his obligations. It would be open to the executive council to consider, when the move takes place and arrangements are tested in practice, whether to impose conditions under the provisions of the terms of service I have already mentioned. These conditions could cover not only telephone communications but also such matters as having adequate transport available or making special arrangements in severe weather. It would not be proper to suggest that such conditions would in fact be required or what they might be. This is a matter for the executive council to consider, if necessary, in due course, and, as there is a right of


appeal, it would be wrong for me to go into the details.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the extra mileage which would be involved. Rural doctors have special payments from a fixed mileage fund to cover their journeys. If a doctor or a partnership qualifies for more payment from this mileage fund, under the special arrangements made, there is no extra burden on the Exchequer because the fund is of a fixed size and the only effect is that the amount available to other doctors in rural areas will be that much less. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's point really relates to how much more goes into the pocket of the doctor.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the possibility of declaring another practice and getting an additional doctor in Upper Weardale. The position is that an executive council cannot declare an existing practice vacant except where it is rendered vacant by the death of a practitioner or by his ceasing to be on the medical lists of the executive council; nor can a council make a block transfer of patients from an existing doctor to a new practice.
A doctor may be admitted to the medical list to "put up his plate", that is, to commence a new practice and to try to attract patients of doctors already in the area. Any such application must be considered by the Medical Practices Committee, which has power to refuse an application on the ground that the number of medical practitioners undertaking to provide general medical services in the area is already adequate. To assist in obtaining a better distribution of doctors throughout the country, the Medical Practices Committee classifies as "restricted" those areas in which, in its opinion, an application to go on the medical list should be refused.
These classifications are based on information obtained from executive councils.
The area of Weardale Rural District Council is classified as restricted. The average number of patients on the doctors' list there is 1,511, and that is lower than average for rural areas and lower than the average in rural areas classified as restricted. It is, therefore, unlikely that at the present time any doctor would seek to put up his plate in this area or if he did apply that his application would be allowed by the Medical Practices Committee. As, again, there is a right of appeal to the Minister by a doctor whose application is refused, I am afraid that I would not want to express views on the merits of an application in this instance.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to a point which is really separate though related, and that is the pharmaceutical service. On 31st May the pharmacy at St. John's Chapel, one of the two serving Upper Weardale, was closed through lack of business. The executive council arranged for any patients who had difficulty in obtaining medicines or who lived at least a mile from the nearest chemist to obtain medicines from his doctor and 800 in all obtain medicines from one or another of the surgeries in Weardale or St. John's Chapel. About forty chose to remain as at present and to acquire medicines from the chemist in Stanhope. The executive council is satisfied that these dispensing arrangements in the existing pharmacy at Stanhope will provide reasonable service for the area but the dispensing arrangements will be one of the factors taken into account when the executive council reconsiders the matter in six months' time.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Three o'clock a.m.